Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-c4bhq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-21T10:24:58.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

280 Characters of Contention: Analyzing Partisan Behavior on Twitter During Supreme Court Confirmation Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2024

Maron W. Sorenson Open the ORCID record for Maron W. Sorenson [Opens in a new window] ,
Rachael Houston Open the ORCID record for Rachael Houston [Opens in a new window]  and
Amanda Savage
Maron W. Sorenson
Affiliation:
Bowdoin College, Department of Government and Legal Studies, Brunswick, ME, USA
Rachael Houston*
Affiliation:
Texas Christian University, Department of Political Science, Fort Worth, TX, USA
Amanda Savage
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Department of Political Science, Chicago, IL, USA
*
Corresponding author: Rachael Houston; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We analyze a cache of tweets from partisan users concerning the confirmation hearings of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Using these original data, we investigate how Twitter users with partisan leanings interact with judicial nominations and confirmations. We find that these users tend to exhibit behavior consistent with offline partisan dynamics. Our analysis reveals that Democrats and Republicans express distinct emotional responses based on the alignment of nominees with their respective parties. Additionally, our study highlights the active participation of partisans in promoting politically charged topics throughout the confirmation process, starting from the vacancy stage.

Keywords

Supreme Courtpartisanshipconfirmation processTwittersocial media
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , First View , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, -Cohen, Joseph, Nicholas. 2020. “Policy Change and Public Opinion: Measuring Shifting Political Sentiment with Social Media Data.” American Politics Research 48(5): 612–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen D., and White, Ariel. 2020. “Policy, Politics, and Public Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research 48(3): 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armaly, Miles T. 2018. “Politicized Nominations and Public Attitudes toward the Supreme Court in the Polarization Era.” Justice System Journal 39(3): 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, Alex, and Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2018. “Someone like Me: Descriptive Representation and Support for Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly 7(1): 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. and Johnston, Christopher D.. 2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” Am. Journal of Political Science 57, no. 1 (January): 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. and Johnston, Christopher D.. 2020. Curbing the Court Why the Public Constrains Judicial Independence. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Stephen L. 1993. “The Confirmation Mess, Continued.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 62:75.Google Scholar
Chen, Philip G, and Bryan, Amanda C. 2018. “Judging the ‘Vapid and Hollow Charade’: Citizen evaluations and the candor of US Supreme Court nominees.” Political Behavior 40: 495–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, Dino P. and Glick, David M.. 2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’s Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science 59(2): 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Staton, Wang, , and Agichtein, . 2018. “Using Twitter to Study Public Discourse in the Wake of Judicial Decisions: Public Reactions to the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex-Marriage Cases.” Journal of Law and Courts 6(1): 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwish, Kareem. 2019. “Quantifying polarization on twitter: the Kavanaugh nomination.” In International Conference on Social Informatics. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Matthew A., Zheng, Kai, Liu, Yang, and Levy, Helen. 2017. “Public Response to Obamacare on Twitter.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 19(5): e167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finn, Arup Nielsen. 2011. “A New ANEW: Evaluation of a Word List for Sentiment Analysis in Microblogs.” In ESWC 2011 Workshop on “Making Sense of Microposts.” CEUR Workshop Proceedings, May.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A. 2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, David. 2023. “Is the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Vulnerable to Intense Appointment Politics? Democrats’ Changed Views Around Justice Ginsburg’s Death.” Journal of Law and Courts 11(1): 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemphill, Libby, Otterbacher, Jahna, and Shapiro, Matthew. 2013. “What’s congress doing on twitter?” In 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. San Antonio, TX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie, and LaRowe, Nicholas. 2013. “Judging Nominees: An Experimental Test of the Impact of Qualifications and Divisiveness on Public Support for Nominees to the Federal Courts.” Justice System Journal 34(1): 38–61.Google Scholar
Jelodar, Hamed, Wang, Yongli, Yuan, Chi, Feng, Xia, Jiang, Xiahui, Li, Yanchao, and Zhao, Liang. 2019. “Latent Dirichlet allocation & Topic Modeling: Models, Applications, a Survey.” Multimedia Tools & Applications 78:15169–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krewson, Christopher N. 2023. “Political Hearings Reinforce Legal Norms: Confirmation Hearings and Views of the United States Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 76(1): 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krewson, Christopher N., and Schroedel, Jean R.. 2020. “Public Views of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation.” Social Science Quarterly 101(4): 1430–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laureate, Caitlin Doogan Poet, and Henry Buntine Wray &Linger. 2023. “A Systematic Review of the Use of Topic Models for Short Text Social Media Analysis.” Artificial Intelligence Review 56(12): 14223–14255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Jinghui, Henchion, Maeve M., and Namee, Brian Mac. 2019. “A topic-based approach to multiple corpus comparison.” In Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Mamakos, Michalis, and Finkel, Eli J. 2023. “The Social Media Discourse of Engaged Partisans is Toxic Even When Politics are Irrelevant.” PNAS Nexus 2(10): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazoyer, B ´eatrice, Julia Cag´e, Nicolas Herv´e, and Hudelot, C´eline. 2020. “A French corpus for event detection on twitter.” In 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 6220–6227.Google Scholar
Mislove, Alan, Lehmann, Sune, Ahn, Yong-Yeol, Onnela, Jukka-Pekka, and Rosenquist, James. 2011. “Understanding the Demographics of Twitter Users.” International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 5(1): 554–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Jonathan S. 2001. “Reexamining the Politics of Talk: Partisan Rhetoric in the 104th House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(1): 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murakami, Akira, Thompson, Paul, Hunston, Susan, and Vajn, Dominik. 2017. “‘What is This Corpus About?’: Using Topic Modelling to Explore a Specialised Corpus.” Corpora 12(2): 243–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, Frank. 2018. “Americans Closely Divided on Kavanaugh Confirmation.” Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/243377/americans-closely-divided-kavanaugh-confirmation.aspx (Last accessed October 30, 2024).Google Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P., and Hansford, Thomas G.. 2014. “Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science 58(3): 620–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Brendan, Balasubramanyan, Ramnath, Routledge, Bryan, and Smith, Noah. 2010. “From tweets to polls: linking text sentiment to public opinion time series.” In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 122–129.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, and Stone, . 2021. “How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court.” British Journal of Political Science 51(3): 1251–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Annelise. 2021. “Minority Opposition and Asymmetric Parties? Senators’ Partisan Rhetoric on Twitter.” Political Research Quarterly 74(3): 615–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandhu, Mannila, Vinson, C Danielle, Mago, Vijay K, and Giabbanelli, Philippe J. 2019. “From Associations to Sarcasm: Mining the Shift of Opinions Regarding the Supreme Court on Twitter.” Online Social Networks and Media 14:100054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Maya. 2017. “How Political Signals Affect Public Support for Judicial Nominations: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly 70(2): 374–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, Jieun, and Thorson, Kjerstin. 2017. “Partisan Selective Sharing: The Biased Diffusion of Fact-checking Messages on Social Media.” Journal of Communication 67(2): 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, Jake S. 2023. “Analyzing the Rhetoric of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.” Journal of Law and Courts 12(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Tumasjan, Andranik, Sprenger, Timm, Sandner, Philipp, and Welpe, Isabell. 2010. “Predicting elections with Twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment.” In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twitter. 2021. “Q4 and Fiscal Year 2020 Letter to Shareholders.”Google Scholar
Wang, Hao, Can, Dogan, Kazemzadeh, Abe, Fran¸, cois Bar, and Narayanan, Shrikanth. 2012. “A System for Real-time Twitter Sentiment Analysis of 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Cycle.” Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 115–120.Google Scholar
Wojcik, Stefan, and Hughes, Adam. 2019. “Sizing Up Twitter Users.” Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Yaqub, Ussama, Chun, Soon, Atluri, Vijayalakshmi, and Vaidya, Jaideep. 2017. “Analysis of Political Discourse on Twitter in the Context of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections.” Government Information Quarterly 34(4): 613–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilis, Michael, and Blandau, Rachael. 2021. “Judicial legitimacy, political polarization, and how the public views the Supreme Court.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sorenson et al. supplementary material

Sorenson et al. supplementary material
Download Sorenson et al. supplementary material(File)
File 293.1 KB