Conscientiousness and Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee

Abstract

Abstract This article examines how one personality trait of U.S. Supreme Court nominees influences the confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specifically, the article asks, are conscientious nominees more forthcoming when they answer Committee Members’ questions? And, second, are Committee Members, in turn, more or less likely to vote favorably for conscientious nominees? The paper builds a theory of how the conscientiousness trait shapes how nominees to the High Court interact with the Senate Judiciary Committee. To test our theory and answer the questions, we use confirmation hearing data starting from 1955 and extending through 2018, which includes both the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh hearings. We find that personality shapes interactions in the Senate judiciary committee in important and meaningful ways. Importantly, we find evidence that suggests a nominee's conscientiousness helps to explain why some Senators would be willing to vote for him or her even when that nominee might be less qualified.