Sitting justices rarely change views, so screening nominees works

Evidence

Yet one should not overstate the matter. When justices are appointed, they already have established legal views, and only rarely do those views change dramatically once they are on the Court. Moreover, presidents seek to minimize “mistakes” by canvassing the views of potential nominees before appointment, and the recent tendency to select justices from the ranks of the federal courts of appeals facilitates such scrutiny. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 540

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Justices’ ideological outlooks directly produce their voting patterns. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1312; Judicial merit is necessary but never decisive in federal appointments. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 460; Presidents differ sharply in how much ideological screening they apply to judicial nominees — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 493 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Judges bring consistent long-established political views to the bench #corroborates (0.90) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2572
• Political selection fills the courts with judges holding established partisan views #corroborates (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2571
• Conference discussion rarely changes a justice’s vote because format discourages interchange #corroborates (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1562
• Collegiality only marginally shifts judges’ settled votes #corroborates (0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1338
• Justices who favor an outcome personally may still suppress those views on role-conception grounds. #qualifies (0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1288
• Party affiliation predicts judicial votes across court levels but only imperfectly. #corroborates (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1314