Abstract
We hypothesize that the public assesses U.S. Supreme Court nominees in light of the contemporaneous Court’s partisan composition. In a preregistered conjoint experiment ( n = 9,895), we find that Democrats and Republicans weigh nominee partisanship more heavily when their party is losing the Court and less heavily when their party already enjoys a secure majority. Consistent with affective polarization and threat-based political psychology, however, they care just as much about partisanship when the Court is split as when the other party enjoys a strong majority – even though the new Justice would swing the Court only in the former scenario.
Citation
Wu, Victor Y., and Yusaku Horiuchi. Forthcoming. “The Supreme Court’s Partisan Composition Affects How Americans Evaluate Nominees: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Journal of Law and Courts. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2026.10029