Abstract

The confirmation rate for those nominated to fill positions on the U.S. Courts of Appeals has been steadily declining. At the start of the Carter Administration, one hundred percent of those nominated to the circuit courts were confirmed. From 1995 to 2000, less than half of those nominated by President Clinton were confirmed, with some nominees waiting more than three years for a confirmation vote. After Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate, President G.W. Bush should have enjoyed a high success rate with appointments to the lower federal appellate courts, yet several of his nominations have failed amid debates surrounding the nominee's policy views. Ideological divisions between Democrats and Republicans increasingly shape federal judicial selection processes, with more attention to those nominated to sit on high visibility courts such as the Ninth Circuit. The focus of this Article is to evaluate a central question in the debate over judicial selection, including nominations to the Ninth Circuit: Do judges make decisions that are consistent with the policy views of the appointing administration? Part I reviews the existing scholarship on lower federal court appointments and judicial behavior, and establishes the framework for analysis. Part II describes the data used to test for appointment effects on decisionmaking. Part III presents the results, and Part IV follows with discussions and conclusions.

How to Cite