Interest groups increasingly influence federal appeals court nominations

Evidence

The partisan and ideological furor over Judge Pickering and several other Bush nominees reflects the increasing polarization of American politics—Republican senators had opposed some of President Bill Clinton’s nominees just as vehemently as Democrats opposed Pickering. The conflict also reveals the increasing importance that advocacy groups on both sides of the political spectrum attach to appeals court nominations and their increasing influence in the selection process. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 514

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to chapter 2 and 3 earlier claims that ideology has replaced patronage in appeals court selection and that lower courts shape policy. — connects to: Open Supreme Court confirmation hearings empowered interest groups to influence them — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 544; Ideology has replaced patronage in appeals court selection since recent decades; Senate initiations and presidential involvement in appointments vary by court level — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 650 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Senate initiations and presidential involvement in appointments vary by court level #expands (0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 650
• Filibusters and recess appointments weaponize judicial confirmation procedures #expands (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 513
• Political selection fills the courts with judges holding established partisan views #corroborates (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2571
• Retention defeats require organized opposition campaigns against judges #exemplifies (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 609
• Presidents differ sharply in how much ideological screening they apply to judicial nominees #expands (0.72) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 493