Sequential legitimation: Having the last word in US Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearings

This study examines how legitimation is interactionally constructed in US Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) lower court nomination hearings. Drawing on legitimation theories and using Conversation Analysis, I argue that legitimation is accomplished not just through the content of senators’ talk, but also through its sequential positioning, specifically through having the “last word,” or through securing the final turn during hearing Q&A exchanges. Data includes video-recorded hearings from 2020 and 2022, with analysis focusing on instances where senators invoke the hearing’s time limits to conclude their questioning. These invocations enable senators to claim last-word turns while expressing critical evaluations of nominees and precluding their opportunities to respond, rebut, or contextualize the criticisms levied against them. In doing so, senators interactionally legitimize their own stances while delegitimizing nominees and their candidacy. By reconceptualizing legitimation as a sequential achievement, the study extends political communication and legitimation studies beyond monologic discourse to interactive formats.