Representative Appointments: The Effect of Women's Groups in Contentious Supreme Court Confirmations

Udi Sommer

doi:10.1080/1554477X.2013.747876

Representative Appointments: The Effect of Women's Groups in Contentious Supreme Court Confirmations

Udi Sommer

School of Political science studies

Tel Aviv University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

A large share of decision makers in modern democratic systems are appointed. To what degree do those officials represent constituents? Representation in this case is determined in part by the extent to which constituents influence the appointment process. This article examines the influence of women's organized interests and constituency preferences on Supreme Court confirmation votes. With topics such as sexual harassment, privacy, and Roe v. Wade looming large, gender politics became a salient issue during confirmation battles in the late 1980s and early 1990s and has remained so since. Original data from the contentious appointments of Justices David Souter, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor are analyzed. Results confirm that women's organized interests and popular preferences have an impact on contentious nominations. Implications for popular influences on appointments and for representation in government writ large are discussed.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-22
Number of pages	22
Journal	Journal of Women, Politics and Policy
Volume	34
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2013.747876
State	Published - Jan 2013

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
SDG 5 Gender Equality
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Keywords

Supreme Court appointments
organized interests
political appointments
representation
women groups
women's representation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Gender Studies
Sociology and Political Science

Access to Document

10.1080/1554477X.2013.747876

Cite this

@article{5354382f46d141d999f6e2a20abfc6f5,

title = "Representative Appointments: The Effect of Women's Groups in Contentious Supreme Court Confirmations",

abstract = "A large share of decision makers in modern democratic systems are appointed. To what degree do those officials represent constituents? Representation in this case is determined in part by the extent to which constituents influence the appointment process. This article examines the influence of women's organized interests and constituency preferences on Supreme Court confirmation votes. With topics such as sexual harassment, privacy, and Roe v. Wade looming large, gender politics became a salient issue during confirmation battles in the late 1980s and early 1990s and has remained so since. Original data from the contentious appointments of Justices David Souter, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor are analyzed. Results confirm that women's organized interests and popular preferences have an impact on contentious nominations. Implications for popular influences on appointments and for representation in government writ large are discussed.",

keywords = "Supreme Court appointments, organized interests, political appointments, representation, women groups, women's representation",

author = "Udi Sommer",

note = "Funding Information: An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 2006, Chicago, IL. I would like to thank the editors and the four anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments. I would also like to thank Victor Asal and Sally Friedman for their helpful advice on this manuscript. Jesse Ellman was an outstanding research coordinator for this project, and Jonathan Parent and Tanya Dissanayake were helpful as research assistants. Finally, without the support of Dean Jeffrey Straussman and the Rockefeller College Research Fund, completing this project would not have been possible.",

year = "2013",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1080/1554477X.2013.747876",

language = "الإنجليزيّة",

volume = "34",

pages = "1--22",

journal = "Journal of Women, Politics and Policy",

issn = "1554-477X",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Representative Appointments

T2 - The Effect of Women's Groups in Contentious Supreme Court Confirmations

AU - Sommer, Udi

N1 - Funding Information: An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 2006, Chicago, IL. I would like to thank the editors and the four anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments. I would also like to thank Victor Asal and Sally Friedman for their helpful advice on this manuscript. Jesse Ellman was an outstanding research coordinator for this project, and Jonathan Parent and Tanya Dissanayake were helpful as research assistants. Finally, without the support of Dean Jeffrey Straussman and the Rockefeller College Research Fund, completing this project would not have been possible.

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - A large share of decision makers in modern democratic systems are appointed. To what degree do those officials represent constituents? Representation in this case is determined in part by the extent to which constituents influence the appointment process. This article examines the influence of women's organized interests and constituency preferences on Supreme Court confirmation votes. With topics such as sexual harassment, privacy, and Roe v. Wade looming large, gender politics became a salient issue during confirmation battles in the late 1980s and early 1990s and has remained so since. Original data from the contentious appointments of Justices David Souter, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor are analyzed. Results confirm that women's organized interests and popular preferences have an impact on contentious nominations. Implications for popular influences on appointments and for representation in government writ large are discussed.

AB - A large share of decision makers in modern democratic systems are appointed. To what degree do those officials represent constituents? Representation in this case is determined in part by the extent to which constituents influence the appointment process. This article examines the influence of women's organized interests and constituency preferences on Supreme Court confirmation votes. With topics such as sexual harassment, privacy, and Roe v. Wade looming large, gender politics became a salient issue during confirmation battles in the late 1980s and early 1990s and has remained so since. Original data from the contentious appointments of Justices David Souter, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor are analyzed. Results confirm that women's organized interests and popular preferences have an impact on contentious nominations. Implications for popular influences on appointments and for representation in government writ large are discussed.

KW - Supreme Court appointments

KW - organized interests

KW - political appointments

KW - representation

KW - women groups

KW - women's representation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872034656&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/1554477X.2013.747876

DO - 10.1080/1554477X.2013.747876

M3 - مقالة

SN - 1554-477X

VL - 34

SP - 1

EP - 22

JO - Journal of Women, Politics and Policy

JF - Journal of Women, Politics and Policy

IS - 1

ER -

Representative Appointments: The Effect of Women's Groups in Contentious Supreme Court Confirmations

Abstract

UN SDGs

Keywords

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this