000			01815nam a22001337a 4500
999			_c533043 _d533043
008			260421b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aHerlihy, Morrgan T. and Nelson, Michael J. _960112
245			_aJudging judicial nominees
260			_aPolitical Research Quarterly
300			_a78(4), Dec, 2025: p.1165-1181
520			_aWhat determines public support for judicial nominees? We argue that support for nominees is based on policy congruence, and a nominee’s candor at her confirmation hearing can assist citizens as they try to align their support for a nominee with their own policy preferences. When nominees are evasive, other cues, such as past practice experience and interest group statements, can help citizens align their policy preferences with their support for a nominee. Drawing on two nationally representative survey experiments, we demonstrate that, when nominees demur in their answers to abortion questioning, citizens’ policy preferences play only a small role in shaping support for a nominee. But, when a nominee is forthcoming about their views on abortion, citizens’ policy views are a strong predictor of their desire to have the nominee confirmed. In a conjoint experiment, we demonstrate that—particularly in the absence of forthcoming statements from nominees—interest group support can help citizens to calibrate their policy views with their support for a nominee. The results emphasize the importance of confirmation hearings, even when nominees are evasive, for shaping public support.-Reproduced https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10659129251350143?_gl=1*7m2egv*_up*MQ..*_ga*MjMzNjk2NTEzLjE3NzY3 NTE3ODE.*_ga_60R758KFDG*czE3NzY3NTE3ODAkbzEkZzEkdDE3NzY3NTE4MDQkajM2JGwwJGgyNTQ0NDIwNjg.
773			_aPolitical Research Quarterly
942			_cAR