In this thesis, I describe how the confirmational rigor applied to judicial nominees is related to whether a senator shares the party of the president. I first conduct a sentiment analysis and use the scores as an initial proxy for rigor with more negative/less positive results indicating greater rigor (and vice versa). To further substantiate these findings, I next present the results of collocation and topic model analyses which show the recurring themes of the hearings. Throughout, I provide a hand-content analysis of the confirmation hearing transcripts to give necessary context. I find that overall rigor applied to nominees moving between district and circuit courts decreases for senators who share the party of the president. At the same time, the overall rigor applied to these nominees increases for senators of the party opposite the president. Applying these same tests to nominees moving from a circuit court to the Supreme Court, I find a minimal increase in rigor applied to nominees by members of both parties. I conclude by discussing the impact of my results and commenting on ways to improve and expand my analysis.