TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: SENATORS‘ OPENING STATEMENTS AT SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATON HEARINGS
This article examines the opening statements made by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee at Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Its aim is to identify the audiences senators target in their opening statements and to examine the messages they send to these audiences. The article shifts the focus away from the outcome of Supreme Court nominations to the “nomination discourse” of confirmation proceedings. Although senators use their opening statements to send a variety of messages to multiple audiences, they tend to emphasize the themes of judicial philosophy, the questioning of nominees, and the Senate's role in the confirmation process.
Confirming the Constitution: The Role of the Senate Judiciary Committee
When the Supreme Court reached its usual frenetic climax for the October Term 1991, the decisions in Planned Parenthood v. Caseyl and Lee v. Weisman2 surprised many observers and Court pundits. Instead of overturning Roe v. Wade,3 the Court reaffirmed a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy in the Casey decision, and instead of cutting back on the principle of church-state separation, the Court reaffirmed it in the Weisman decision, at least as it applies to official benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies. Besides the outcomes, the biggest surprises in these two important decisions were the positions of two members of the Court: Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush respectively, the two Justices had been widely expected to reflect the moral values of the presidents who put them on the Court. They were expected to produce constitutional decisions overturning Roe in the Casey decision and allowing greater accommodation of religion in public life in Weisman.
Nurse responsiveness to cancer patient expressions of emotion.
OBJECTIVE
This theoretically based study examined nurse responses to cancer patient expressions of emotion using a videotaped, simulated cancer patient.


METHODS
This study used an experimental crossover design with a videotaped patient expressing anger, sadness, and neutral emotion to elicit nurse responses. Seventy-four nurses from eight sites participated. Responses were coded using Roter interaction analysis system. Correlations explored relationships between variables that impact communication (age, gender, work experience, trait anxiety, work stress, self-efficacy). Regression models explored the effect of variables on nurse affective responsiveness.


RESULTS
Patient expressions of sadness elicited more affective responses than anger. Expressions of anger or neutral emotion elicited more instrumental behaviors than sadness. Variables such as age, work stress and work experience were significantly correlated. No variables predicted affective responsiveness to patient expressions of anger or sadness.


CONCLUSION
Nurse communication showed significant variation in response to patient emotional expressions. Understanding the relationships between demographic, personality, and work variables, and identification of new variables that influence nurse-patient communication, has implications for interventional studies.


PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
Over 90% of the participants indicated that the videotape simulation would be a useful method for teaching and practicing communication skills with patients expressing emotions.