Understanding court nominee evaluation and approval: Mass opinion in the Bork and Thomas cases

This article explores public opinion formation in reaction to the controversial nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. When asked to justify their approval or disapproval of these well-recognized nominees, an interesting pattern emerged. Citizens opposed to the nominations tended to cast their arguments in terms of ideology and specific issues. Supporters, however, called attention to the nominee's character, abilities, achievements, or some notion of deference to the president. We speculate that this asymmetry in responses is traceable to the content of the elite debate. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for presidential nomination strategy.