Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T13:18:57.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Textbook Pluralism to Modern Hyperpluralism

Interest Groups and Supreme Court Nominations, 1930–2017

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Charles M. Cameron ,
Cody Gray ,
Jonathan P. Kastellec  and
Jee-Kwang Park
Charles M. Cameron
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Cody Gray
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Jonathan P. Kastellec*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Jee-Kwang Park
Affiliation:
Sejong Institute
*
Contact the corresponding author, Jonathan P. Kastellec, at jkastell@princeton.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine interest group involvement in Supreme Court nominations from 1930 to 2017, finding dramatic shifts in the number and type of groups, as well as their choice of tactics. Whereas the early period was dominated by labor unions, “core” civil rights groups, and groups affiliated with the “old right,” the modern period is dominated by public interest/citizen groups and “identity” groups. We also find a shift from more traditional “inside” tactics to the heavy use of “outside/grassroots” mobilization tactics. Finally, we show that the calculus of mobilization has increasingly been based on a nominee’s ideology over time.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Fall 2020 , pp. 301 - 332
Copyright
© 2020 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank Julian Dean, Laura Huchel, Naomi Lake, Hal Moore, Michael Pomirchy, and Nina Sheridan for excellent research assistance. We also thank Chris Achen, Devin Caughey, Josh Chaffetz, Virginia Gray, Gregory Koger, Josh Lerner, and Michael Nelson for helpful comments and suggestions, as well as participants at Princeton’s Center for the Study of Democratic Politics colloquium and the 2017 Duke Law and Courts Conference. A complete replication archive can be found on the JLC Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WQWUAL.

References

Ainsworth, Scott H., and Anthony Maltese, John. 1996. “National Grange Influence on the Supreme Court Confirmation of Stanley Matthews.” Social Science History 20 (1): 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Wright, John R. 1994. “Counteractive Lobbying.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., Berry, Jeffrey M., Hojnacki, Marie, Kimball, David C., and Leech, Beth L. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Lauren Cohen. 2002. Warring Factions: Interest Groups, Money, and the New Politics of Senate Confirmation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Berkman, Michael B. 2001. “Legislative Professionalism and the Demand for Groups: The Institutional Context of Interest Population Density.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (4): 661–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, Shaun, Baumgartner, Frank R., Johnson, Erik W., and McCarthy, John D. 2013. “Understanding Selection Bias, Time-Lags and Measurement Bias in Secondary Data Sources: Putting the Encyclopedia of Associations Database in Broader Context.” Social Science Research 42 (6): 1750–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandt, Patrick T., Williams, John T., Fordham, Benjamin O., and Pollins, Brian. 2000. “Dynamic Modeling for Persistent Event-Count Time Series.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 823–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 2014. American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., Hojnacki, Marie, and Wright, John R. 2000. “The Lobbying Activities of Organized Interests in Federal Judicial Nominations.” Journal of Politics 62 (1): 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R. 1998. “Lobbying for Justice: Organized Interests, Supreme Court Nominations, and United States Senate.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 499–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Cover, Albert D., and Segal, Jeffrey A. 1990. “Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model.” American Political Science Review 84 (2): 525–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Kastellec, Jonathan P., and Mattioli, Lauren. 2019. “Presidential Selection of Supreme Court Nominees: The Characteristics Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 14 (4): 439–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Kastellec, Jonathan P., and Park, Jee-Kwang. 2013. “Voting for Justices: Change and Continuity in Confirmation Voting, 1937–2010.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 283–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., and Park, Jee-Kwang. 2009. “How Will They Vote? Predicting the Future Behavior of Supreme Court Nominees, 1937–2006.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6 (3): 485–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom S. 2009. “Measuring Ideological Polarization on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 62 (1): 146–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. Jr., 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Danelski, David J. 1964. A Supreme Court Justice Is Appointed. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Diven, Polly. 2006. “A Coincidence of Interests: The Hyperpluralism of U.S. Food Aid Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 2 (4): 361–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Lindstadt, Rene, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Westerland, Chad. 2006. “The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees.” Journal of Politics 68 (2): 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Segal, Jeffrey A. 2005. Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., Spaeth, Harold J., and Walker, Thomas G. 2015. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments. 6th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farganis, Dion, and Wedeking, Justin. 2014. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings in the US Senate: Reconsidering the Charade. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Alessandro. 2014. The Democratic Horizon: Hyperpluralism and the Renewal of Political Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Roy B., MacLeod, Michael C., and Talbert, Jeffery. 1998. “Witness at the Confirmations? The Appearance of Organized Interests at Senate Hearings of Federal Judicial Appointments.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (3): 617–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A. 2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goings, Kenneth W. 1990. The NAACP Comes of Age: The Defeat of Judge John J. Parker. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Kenneth M. 1999. Interest Groups, Lobbying, and Participation in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 2012. “The Coming Constitutional Yo-Yo: Elite Opinion, Polarization, and the Direction of Judicial Decision Making.” Howard Law Journal 56:661–719.Google Scholar
Greenburg, Jan Crawford. 2007. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Deardorff, Alan V. 2006. “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaney, Michael T., Masket, Seth E., Miller, Joanne M., and Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2012. “Polarized Networks: The Organizational Affiliations of National Party Convention Delegates.” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (12): 1654–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, Edward Pendleton. 1929. Group Representation before Congress. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P., Lax, Jeffrey R., Malecki, Michael, and Phillips, Justin H. 2015. “Polarizing the Electoral Connection: Partisan Representation in Supreme Court Confirmation Politics.” Journal of Politics 77 (3): 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. 1955. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. 2018. “Liberal Activists Embrace ‘Dark Money’ in Supreme Court Fight.” Washington Post, July 27.Google Scholar
Maltese, John A. 1995. The Selling of Supreme Court Nominees. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, Jane. 2017. Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Mayer, Jane, and Abramson, Jane. 1995. Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
Nemacheck, Christine L. 2008. Strategic Selection: Presidential Nomination of Supreme Court Justices from Herbert Hoover through George W. Bush. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2002. The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Karen, Yannus, Alixandra B., and Mancillas Patterson, Linda. 2007. “Where Have All the Interest Groups Gone? An Analysis of Interest Group Participation in Presidential Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States.” In Interest Group Politics, ed. Cigler, Allan J. and Loomis, Burdett A., 340–65. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Pena, Javier Marquez. 2014. MORE_CLARIFY: Stata Module to Estimate Quantities of Interest through Simulation and Resampling Methods. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457851.html.Google Scholar
Pertschuk, Michael, and Schaetzel, Wendy. 1989. The People Rising: The Campaign against the Bork Nomination. New York: Thunder’s Mouth.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Sam. 2017. The Polarizers: Postwar Architects of Our Partisan Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Nancy. 2005. Scoring Points: Politicians, Activists, and the Lower Federal Court Appointment Process. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Scherer, Nancy, Bartels, Brandon L., and Steigerwalt, Amy. 2008. “Sounding the Fire Alarm: The Role of Interest Groups in the Lower Federal Court Confirmation Process.” Journal of Politics 70 (4): 1026–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlozman, Kay L. 2010. “Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus? The Shape of the Organized Interest System?” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, ed. Maisel, Sandy L. and Berry, Jeffrey M., 426–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schor, Elana. 2018. “Liberal Groups Prep Grass-Roots Campaign against Trump’s SCOTUS Pick.” Politico, July 3.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Cameron, Charles M., and Cover, Albert D. 1992. “A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (1): 96–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, Byron E. 1988. Bifurcated Politics: Evolution and Reform in the National Party Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southworth, Ann. 2009. Lawyers of the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Steigerwalt, Amy. 2010. Battle over the Bench: Senators, Interest Groups, and Lower Court Confirmations. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E., and Iversen, Gudmund R. 1962. “On the Existence of Forces Restoring Party Competition.” Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (2): 159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay, and Martin, Jonathan. 2018. “Conservative and Liberal Groups Gird for Battle over Kavanaugh.” New York Times, July 10.Google Scholar
Teles, Steven M. 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toobin, Jeffrey. 2017. “The Conservative Pipeline to the Supreme Court.” New Yorker, April 17.Google Scholar
Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Vining, Richard L. Jr., 2011. “Grassroots Mobilization in the Digital Age: Interest Group Response to Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (4): 790–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Richard L. 1963. “The Defeat of Judge Parker: A Study in Pressure Groups and Politics.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50 (2): 213–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, John R. 1996. Interest Groups and Congress: Lobbying, Contributions, and Influence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Yalof, David Alistair. 2001. Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cameron et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 462.1 KB