Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court.

Background: We argue that the political and partisan nature of modern judicial confirmation hearings weakens institutional support for the U.S. Supreme Court. Methods: In making this argument, we respond directly to Carrington and French who, in contrast, focus on the individual behavior of nominees. Building on earlier work (Krewson and Schroedel), we also analyze how public views of the Court changed over the 10 weeks following the Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to serve as a Supreme Court justice. Results: We find that partisan differences in institutional support diminished over this period and that the public remained steadfast in its support for nominees based on their legal characteristics and background more than their political attributes. Conclusion: To the extent that the public supported institutional change, it seemed to be because they viewed the Court as falling short of legal expectations rather than because they want the Court to abandon its judicial role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]