When Silence Wins: Why Reserved Supreme Court Nominees Gain Support

What the Study Asks

Amanda Bryan and Philip G. Chen investigate whether a nominee’s candor — specifically, whether they answer ideological questions during Supreme Court confirmation hearings — changes how the public evaluates that nominee. The study tests a common critique of modern hearings: that nominees often decline to reveal their views, a practice many call a “vapid and hollow charade.”

Why This Matters

Confirmations matter for how the public perceives the Court and for the political stakes of judicial appointments. Understanding whether silence or forthrightness helps or hurts nominees clarifies how hearing performances shape public support beyond simple party cues.

How the Study Works

• A survey experiment randomly presented respondents with a hypothetical Supreme Court nominee portrayed as either very forthright about ideological questions or very reticent (refusing to answer such questions). Respondent support for the nominee was then measured.
• The experimental results are supplemented by observational analysis of state-level support for real nominees across the last 40 years, linking the experimental findings to historical patterns.

Key Findings

• Partisan compatibility with the president is the chief predictor of whether respondents support a nominee. That is, shared party alignment remains the dominant factor.
• Despite that, nominees who refuse to answer ideological questions sometimes increase support among respondents who would otherwise oppose them on partisan grounds. In other words, reticence can broaden appeal across partisan divides in certain cases.
• Historical state-level data on real nominees over four decades provide additional context and are broadly consistent with the experimental result that non-disclosure can affect public backing.

Implications for Nomination Politics

These results suggest that strategic silence during confirmation hearings can have political benefits: while partisanship largely determines baseline support, refusal to disclose ideological positions can make some nominees more palatable to opponents or independents. The findings illuminate how norms of judicial non-disclosure interact with partisanship to shape public reactions to confirmation performances.