The federal courts are increasingly important actors in the development of U.S. policy. Judicial decisions feature heavily in media coverage with even district court judges becoming household names as their rulings impact the entire nation. The increasingly contentious and politicized process by which judges gain their lifetime appointments, and how the public views case outcomes once on the bench, are important in understanding the federal judicial system. Yet, scholars understand little of lower court confirmation dynamics or how strategic opinion assignment alters public mood in salient cases. To remedy these issues, I use a combination of novel data and survey experiments to gain further insight into the evolving dynamics and politicization of the judiciary. Using data covering 1) all senator votes during judicial confirmations from 1981-2022, 2) all confirmation outcomes from 1981-2022, and 3) two survey experiments, I study the changing dynamics of federal judicial confirmations and public attitudes towards the courts. I demonstrate that the current confirmation environment is significantly more politicized for recent nominees compared to past administrations. Further, I provide an in-depth examination of the confirmation successes of the Trump presidency. Finally, I show that attempts to strategically select an opinion writer does not overcome ideological preferences in determining public support for salient cases but may mitigate negative support.
Read
