Research
The project explores the role of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary (SCFJ) in rating the qualifications of nominees to the federal judiciary. It proceeds in three parts:
-
In the first part, I identify the source and magnitude of the apparent bias against Republican presidents' nominees to the circuit courts of appeals using a unique data set. The set comprises political and demographic characteristics of members of the SCFJ. The additional data allow me to identify the mechanism that produces the SCFJ's apparent bias.
-
In the second part, I examine the consequences of ABA ratings. Specifically, I look at the discourse in nominees' confirmation hearings to see if ABA ratings affect discussion -- e.g., sentors' questioning -- of the nominees. In this section, I use the knowledge gained from the first section to create an adjusted measure of nominee qualifications to avoid collinearity with measures of ideology.
-
In the final section, I answer why senators and presidents still value the ABA's input and delegate part of the quasi-governmental investigatory function, given the controversy that surrounds the ratings. I employ a principal-agent framework within the "new economics of organization" to guide this section.
Confirmation politics
Judicial behavior
The American presidency
Political communication
Research
Interests
Dissertation
Working Papers and Projects
-
"How You Rate Depends on Who Investigates: Partisan and Other Biases in ABA Ratings of Courts of Appeals Nominees, 1958-2013."
-
"Talkin' about My Qualifications: Adjusted ABA Ratings and Court of Appeals Confirmation Hearing Discourse, 1997-2012."
-
"Lawyers and Judges Revisited: Why the American Bar Association Rates Federal Judicial Nominees."
-
"Changing Horses or Staying the Course: Evaluating the 2012 Recall Elections in Wisconsin." (with Barry Burden, David Canon, Kenneth Mayer, and Donald Moynihan)
-
Federal Judicial Selection Stage Project (with Stephanie D. Kerce, Emory University)