The Supreme Court, Critical Nominations, and the Senate Confirmation Process

This study demonstrates all nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court are not equal. I focus on nominations which are "critical" in the sense that, if successful, they would result in important shifts in partisan coalitions on the Court, and, as a consequence, are of considerable importance so far as the policy outcomes of that institution are concerned. An empirical test of the impact of critical nominations clearly demonstrates the importance of the nature of the vacancy in confirmation outcomes. While almost half of the critical nominations to the Court have failed, the model shows nominations outside this category are 12 times more likely to be confirmed by the Senate. Furthermore, the success of the model in predicting nomination outcomes suggests the notion of critical nominations fills a large gap in our understanding of the dynamics of the confirmation process. The model correctly predicts 94% of successful nominations and an impressive 74% of those nominations that have failed. When the model is applied only to nominations for associate justice positions, it correctly predicts 94% of the confirmations and 82% of the rejections.