Judicial nominees who have confirmation hearings during divided government are much more likely to face ideological questions

While the U.S. Senate is now unable to make use of the filibuster to delay judicial nominees to federal circuit and district courts, they must still undergo a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. New research from Logan Dancey, Kjersten R. Nelson and Eve M. Ringsmuth finds that the political environment is a better predictor of the hearing’s content and questions than the characteristics of the nominee under scrutiny. They write that nominees who face confirmation hearings when the presidency and Senate are controlled by different parties are more likely to face questions on crime, abortion, civil rights and on their judicial philosophy.