We develop and assess an account of ideological asymmetries in public support for the Supreme Court. We find that specific support for the Supreme Court is more strongly negatively related to perceptions that the Court is overly liberal than perceptions that the Court is overly conservative. Our findings provide a more complete theoretical account of dynamics in specific support for the Supreme Court and indicate a mechanism behind the recent decline in the Supreme Court’s public standing.
AnsolabehereStephen D.WhiteAriel. 2020. “Policy, Politics, and Public Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research48 (3): 365–76.
2.
ArmalyMiles T.2016. “Reassessing Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 7–9.
3.
ArmalyMiles T.2018. “Extra-Judicial Actor Induced Change in Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly71 (3): 600–13.
4.
BaileyMichael A.KamoieBrianMaltzmanForrest. 2005. “Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science49 (1): 72–85.
5.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science57 (1): 184–99.
CaldeiraGregory A.1986. “Neither the Purse nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review80 (4): 1209–26.
8.
CaldeiraGregory A.1987. “Public Opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court Packing Plan.” The American Political Science Review81 (December): 1139–53.
9.
CaldeiraGregory A. 1991. “Courts and Public Opinion.” In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, ed. GatesJohn B.JohnsonCharles A.Washington, DC: CQ Press, 303–34.
10.
CaplanLincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. New York: Vintage Books.
11.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’s Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 403–18.
12.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2019. “Reassessing the Supreme Court: How Decisions and Negativity Bias Affect Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly72 (3): 637–52.
13.
ClarkTom S.2009. “The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 971–89.
14.
ConversePhilip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid E., 206-61. New York: The Free Press.
15.
ConversePhilip E.ClausenAage R.MillerWarren E.1965. “Electoral Myth and Reality: The 1964 Election.” The American Political Science Review59 (2): 321–36.
16.
DahlRobert. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law6 (Fall): 279–95.
17.
DurrRobert H.1993. “What Moves Policy Sentiment?” The American Political Science Review87 (March): 158–70.
18.
DurrRobert H.GilmourJames B.WolbrechtChristina. 1997. “Explaining Congressional Approval.” American Journal of Political Science41 (1): 175–207.
19.
EastonDavid. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley.
20.
EdwardsGeorge C.1980. Presidential Influence in Congress. New York: W. H. Freeman.
21.
EllisChristopher R.StimsonJames A.2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
EriksonRobert S.MacKuenMichael B.StimsonJames A.2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
FeldmanStanleyZallerJohn. 1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science36 (February): 268–307.
24.
FranklinCharles H.JacksonJohn E.1983. “The Dynamics of Party Identification.” The American Political Science Review77 (December): 957–73.
25.
FriedmanBarry. 2009. The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
26.
FunstonRichard. 1975. “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections.” The American Political Science Review27:327–58.
27.
GibsonJames L.2012. Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
28.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
29.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003a. “Measuring Attitudes Toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 354–67.
30.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003b. “The Supreme Court and the US Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science33 (4): 535–56.
31.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.2014. “The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Conventional Wisdoms and Recent Challenges Thereto.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science10 (1): 201–19.
32.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.2018. Black and Blue: How African Americans Judge the U.S. Legal System. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
GibsonTroyHareChristopher. 2016. “Moral Epistemology and Ideological Conflict in American Political Behavior.” Social Science Quarterly97 (5): 1157–73.
34.
GogginStephen N.TheodoridisAlexander G.2017. “Disputed Ownership: Parties, Issues, and Traits in the Minds of Voters.” Political Behavior39 (September): 675–702.
35.
GorenPaul. 2001. “Core Principles and Policy Reasoning in Mass Publics: A Test of Two Theories.” British Journal of Political Science31 (January): 159–77.
36.
GrossmanMattHopkinsDavid A.2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
HallMatthew E. K.2011. The Nature of Supreme Court Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
HallMatthew E. K.UraJoseph Daniel. Forthcoming. “Judicial Majoritarianism.” The Journal of Politics77 (3): 818–32.
HetheringtonMarc J.1998. “The Political Relevance of Political Trust.” The American Political Science Review92 (December): 791–808.
41.
HetheringtonMarc J.2005. Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
42.
HetheringtonMarc J.SmithJoseph L.2007. “Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Public Opinion Quarterly71 (2): 40–66.
43.
HittMatthew P.SearlesKathleen. 2018. “Media Coverage and Public Approval of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Communication35:566–86.
44.
JohnstonChristopher D.HillygusD. SunshineBartelsBrandon L.2014. “Ideology, the Affordable Care Act Ruling, and Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Public Opinion Quarterly78 (10): 963–73.
KeeleLuke. 2007. “Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government.” American Journal of Political Science51 (April): 241–54.
47.
KellstedtPaul M.PetersonDavid A. M.RamirezMark D.2010. “The Macro Politics of a Gender Gap.” Public Opinion Quarterly74 (3): 477–98.
48.
KrinerDouglas L.ReevesAndrew. 2015. “Presidential Particularism and Divide-the-Dollar Politics.” The American Political Science Review109 (1): 155–71.
49.
KromphardtChristopher D.SmithJoseph L.StarlingAnderson M.2019. “Group Identification and Support for the Supreme Court: Evidence from Evangelical Protestants.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion58 (4): 854–73.
50.
LuptonRobert N.MyersWilliam M.ThorntonJudd R.2015. “Political Sophistication and the Dimensionality of Elite and Mass Attitudes, 1980-2004.” The Journal of Politics77 (2): 368–80.
51.
LuptonRobert N.MyersWilliam M.ThorntonJudd R.2017. “Party Animals: Asymmetric Ideological Constraint among Democratic and Republican Party Activists.” Political Research Quarterly70 (4): 889–904.
52.
LuptonRobert N.SmallpageSteven M.EndersAdam M.2020. “Values and Political Predispositions in the Age of Polarization: Examining the Relationship between Partisanship and Ideology in the United States, 1988-2012.” British Journal of Political Science50:241–60.
53.
MalhotraNeilJesseeStephen. 2014. “Ideological Proximity and Support for the Supreme Court.” Political Behavior36 (December): 817–46.
54.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2008. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
McCloskyHerbertZallerJohn R.1984. The American Ethos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
MerrillAlison Higgins. 2018. “The Dynamics of Issue Attention on the United States Supreme Court.” PhD diss., Texas A&M University, College Station.
58.
MerrillAlison HigginsConwayNicholas D.UraJoseph Daniel. 2017. “Confidence and Constraint: Public Opinion, Judicial Independence, and the Roberts Court.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy54:209–28.
59.
MondakJeffery J.GrosskopfAnke. 1998. “Do Attitudes Toward Specific Supreme Court Decisions Matter? The Impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly51 (3): 633–54.
60.
MondakJeffrey J.SmitheyShannon Ishiyama. 1997. “The Dynamics of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics59 (November): 1114–42.
61.
NelsonMichael J.Uribe-McGuireAlicia. 2017. “Opportunity and Overrides: The Effect of Institutional Public Support on Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Decisions.” Political Research Quarterly70 (3): 632–43.
62.
PageBenjamin I.ShapiroRobert Y.1982. “Changes in Americans’ Policy Preferences, 1935-1979.” Public Opinion Quarterly46:24–42.
63.
PageBenjamin I.ShapiroRobert Y.2010. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
64.
PeakeJeffrey S.2001. “Presidential Agenda Setting in Foreign Policy.” Political Research Quarterly54 (March):69–86.
65.
PerryH. W.1994. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
RamirezMark D.2008. “Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Psychology29 (5): 675–98.
68.
RikerWilliam H.1980. “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” The American Political Science Review74 (June): 432–46.
69.
RogersJames R.UraJoseph Daniel. 2020. “A Majoritarian Basis for Judicial Countermajoritarianism.” Journal of Theoretical Politics32 (3): 435–59.
70.
RudolphThomas J.2002. “The Economic Sources of Congressional Approval.” Legislative Studies Quarterly27 (4): 577–99.
71.
SegalJeffrey A.TimponeRichard J.HowardRobert M.2000. “Buyer Beware? Presidential Success through Supreme Court Appointments.” Political Research Quarterly53 (September): 557–73.
72.
SegalJeffrey A.WesterlandChadLindquistStefanie A.2011. “Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model.” American Journal of Political Science55 (January): 89–104.
73.
SinozichSofi. 2017. “Public Opinion on the US Supreme Court, 1973–2015.” Public Opinion Quarterly81 (March): 173–95.
74.
StimsonJames A.1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. 2nd ed.Boulder: Westview Press.
75.
StimsonJames A.MackuenMichael B.EriksonRobert S.1995. “Dynamic Representation.” The American Political Science Review89 (September): 543–65.
76.
UraJoseph Daniel. 2014. “Backlash and Legitimation: Macro Political Responses to Supreme Court Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science58 (January): 110–26.
77.
UraJoseph DanielEllisChristopher R.2012. “Partisan Moods: Polarization and Party Preference Dynamics.” The Journal of Politics74 (1): 277–91.
78.
UraJoseph DanielWohlfarthPatrick C.2010. “‘An Appeal to the People’: Public Opinion and Congressional Support for the Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics72 (4): 939–56.
79.
WlezienChristopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science39 (November): 981–1000.
80.
WlezienChristopher. 1996. “Dynamics of Representation: The Case of US Spending on Defence.” British Journal of Political Science26 (1): 81–103.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
