{"title":"美国最高法院的规范性偏好和对纠纷的回应","authors":"Christopher M. Parker, Benjamin Woodson","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With high profile cases being decided by 5-4 votes divided along ideological lines, there is a worry that frequent ideological disagreement over the Constitution will erode the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court and the public’s acceptance of its decisions. While other scholars have studied the effects of dissenting opinions on public acceptance of decisions, we engage in a more nuanced analysis that takes into account a person’s normative preferences for how the Court should reach decisions. More specifically, we explore whether the effect of a dissenting opinion on public acceptance is moderated by the style of the dissent, or by the normative preferences of the person reading the dissent. We predict that there is significant variation within the public regarding the degree to which politics and public opinion should influence Court decisions, and this variation is important in explaining how people respond to disagreement between the Court’s justices. Our experimental survey first measures the degree to which respondents feel that judges should utilize public opinion or ideological considerations when making decisions, and then provides respondents with a fictional Supreme Court decision either with or without a dissenting opinion. We find that the effect of a dissenting opinion on acceptance of the decision and institutional legitimacy depends upon the normative preferences of the respondent and not the content or rhetorical style of the dissent.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Normative Preferences and Responses to Dissension on the U.S. Supreme Court\",\"authors\":\"Christopher M. Parker, Benjamin Woodson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract With high profile cases being decided by 5-4 votes divided along ideological lines, there is a worry that frequent ideological disagreement over the Constitution will erode the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court and the public’s acceptance of its decisions. While other scholars have studied the effects of dissenting opinions on public acceptance of decisions, we engage in a more nuanced analysis that takes into account a person’s normative preferences for how the Court should reach decisions. More specifically, we explore whether the effect of a dissenting opinion on public acceptance is moderated by the style of the dissent, or by the normative preferences of the person reading the dissent. We predict that there is significant variation within the public regarding the degree to which politics and public opinion should influence Court decisions, and this variation is important in explaining how people respond to disagreement between the Court’s justices. Our experimental survey first measures the degree to which respondents feel that judges should utilize public opinion or ideological considerations when making decisions, and then provides respondents with a fictional Supreme Court decision either with or without a dissenting opinion. We find that the effect of a dissenting opinion on acceptance of the decision and institutional legitimacy depends upon the normative preferences of the respondent and not the content or rhetorical style of the dissent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768186\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768186","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Normative Preferences and Responses to Dissension on the U.S. Supreme Court
Abstract With high profile cases being decided by 5-4 votes divided along ideological lines, there is a worry that frequent ideological disagreement over the Constitution will erode the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court and the public’s acceptance of its decisions. While other scholars have studied the effects of dissenting opinions on public acceptance of decisions, we engage in a more nuanced analysis that takes into account a person’s normative preferences for how the Court should reach decisions. More specifically, we explore whether the effect of a dissenting opinion on public acceptance is moderated by the style of the dissent, or by the normative preferences of the person reading the dissent. We predict that there is significant variation within the public regarding the degree to which politics and public opinion should influence Court decisions, and this variation is important in explaining how people respond to disagreement between the Court’s justices. Our experimental survey first measures the degree to which respondents feel that judges should utilize public opinion or ideological considerations when making decisions, and then provides respondents with a fictional Supreme Court decision either with or without a dissenting opinion. We find that the effect of a dissenting opinion on acceptance of the decision and institutional legitimacy depends upon the normative preferences of the respondent and not the content or rhetorical style of the dissent.
期刊介绍:
The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.