How do Americans’ preferences over judicial philosophy influence their support for judges and judicial decisions? Using an experiment attached to an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis, we find that people hold preferences over judicial philosophies, that they rely on those preferences to evaluate judges and decisions, and that those preferences are not simply stand-ins for ideology and partisanship. These findings suggest that to understand people’s support for judges and judicial decisions one must pay attention to judicial philosophy.
AckermanBruce. 2007. “The Living Constitution.” Harvard Law Review120 (7).
2.
AngristJoshua DPischkeJorn-Steffen. 2008. “Making Regression Make Sense.” In Mostly Harmless Econometrics, 27–112. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
ArmalyMiles T.2018. “Politicized Nominations and Public Attitudes toward the Supreme Court in the Polarization Era.” Justice System Journal39: 1–17.
4.
BadasAlex. 2019a. “The Applied Legitimacy Index: A New Approach to Measuring Judicial Legitimacy.” Social Science Quarterly100 (5): 848–1861.
5.
BadasAlex. 2019b. “Policy Disagreement and Judicial Legitimacy: Evidence from the 1937 Court-Packing Plan.” Journal of Legal Studies48 (2): 377–08.
6.
BadasAlexStaufferKatelyn E. 2018. “Someone like Me: Descriptive Representation and Support for Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly71 (1): 127–42.
7.
BairdVanessaGanglAmy. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology27 (4): 597–13.
8.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2020. Curbing the Court: Why the Public Constrains Judicial Independence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
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.
10.
BartelsBrandon L.Kramon.Eric2022. “All the President’s Justices? The Impact of Presidential Copartisanship on Supreme Court Job Approval.” American Journal of Political Science66 (1): 171-86.
11.
BenjaminDaniel J.CesariniDavidVan Der LoosMatthijs JHMDawesChristopher TKoellingerPhilipp D.MagnussonPatrik KEChabrisChristopher F., et al.2012. “The genetic architecture of economic and political preferences.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109 (21): 8026–31.
12.
BonillaTabithaTillerAlvin B. 2020. “Which Identity Frames Boost Support for and Mobilization in the #BlackLivesMatter Movement? An Experimental Test.” American Political Science Review114 (4): 947–62.
13.
BorkRobert H. 1997. The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. New York, NY: Free Press.
14.
BrennanWilliam J.Jr.1985. “The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification.” Southern Texas Law Review27: 433–45.
CasperJonathan D.TylerTomFisher.Bonnie1988. “Procedural Justice in Felony Cases.” Law and Society Review22 (3): 483–508.
17.
ChenPhilip GBryanAmanda C. 2018. “Judging the 'Vapid and Hollow Charade': Citizen Evaluations and the Candor of US Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Behavior40 (2): 495–20.
18.
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.
19.
CohnEllen S.Rick JTrinknerRebellonCesar J.Van GundyKaren T.ColeLindsey M.. 2012. “Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy: Extending the Integrated Legal Socialization Model.” Victims & Offenders7 (4): 385-06.
20.
CollinsPaul M.RinghandLori A.. 2015. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
ComiskeyMichael. 1999. “Not Guilty: The News Media in the Supreme Court Confirmation Process.” JL & Pol15.
FriedmanJeffrey A.2019. “Priorities for Preventive Action: Explaining Americans’ Divergent Reactions to 100 Public Risks.” American Journal of Political Science63 (1): 181–96.
27.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law and Society Review45 (1): 195–19.
28.
GibsonJames L.Nelson.Michael J.2015. “Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 162–74.
29.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.Kenyatta Spence.Lester2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly58 (2): 187–01.
30.
GreeneJamalPersilyNathanielStephenAnsolabehere. 2011. "Profiling Originalism." Columbia Law Review111: 356–18.
31.
Guliuzza IIIFrankReaganDaniel JBarrettDavid M. 1991. “Character, Competency, and Constitutionalism: Did the Book Nomination Represent a Fundamental Shift in Confirmation Criteria.” Marq. L. Rev75.
HoekstraValerieLaRoweNicholas. 2013. “Judging nominees: An experimental test of the impact of qualifications and divisiveness on public support for nominees to the federal courts.” Justice System Journal34 (1): 38–61.
34.
HuoYuen J.Tyler.Tom R.2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
35.
KaneJohn VictorMasonLillianaWronskiJulie. 2021. “Who’s at the Party? Group Sentiments, Knowledge, and Partisan Identity.” Journal of Politics.
36.
KaslovskyJaclynRogowskiJon CStoneAndrew R. 2021. "Descriptive Representation and Public Support for Supreme Court Nominees." Political Science Research and Methods9 (3): 583–98.
37.
KohlbergLawrence. 2008. “The Development of Children’s OrientationsToward a Moral Order: I. Sequence in the Development of Moral Thought.” Human Development51 (1): 8–20.
38.
KrewsonChristopher N.OwensRyan J.. 2021b. “How State Judicial Selection Methods May Influence Views of US Supreme Court Nominees: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Journal of Law and Courts9.
39.
KrewsonChristopher N.OwensRyan J.. 2021a. “Public Support for Judicial Philosophies: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Journal of Law and Courts9 (1): 89–110.
40.
LaxJeffrey R. 2012. “Political Constraints on Legal Doctrine: How Hierarchy Shapes the Law.” Journal of Politics74 (3): 765–81.
MontenegroAlvaro. 2001. “On Sample Size and Precision in Ordinary Least Squares.” Journal of Applied Statistics28 (5): 603–05.
43.
NelsonMichael J.GibsonJames L.. 2020. “Measuring Subjective Ideological Disagreement With the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts8 (1): 75–94.
44.
NelsonMichael J.TuckerPatrick D.. 2021. “The Stability and Durability of the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy." Journal of Politics83 (2): 767–71.
45.
NicholsonStephen P.HansfordThomas G.. 2014. “Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions.” American Journal Of Political Science58 (3): 620–36.
46.
OwensRyan J.WedekingJustin P.WohlfarthPatrick C.. 2013. “How the Supreme Court Alters Opinion Language to Evade Congressional Review.” Journal of Law and Courts1 (1): 35–59.
47.
RamirezMark D. 2008. “Procedural perceptions and support for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Psychology29 (5): 675–98.
48.
RinghandLori A.Collins.Paul M.2010. “May It Please the Senate: An Empirical Analysis of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings of Supreme Court Nominees, 1939-2009.” American University Law Review60 (5).
49.
ScaliaAntonin S.1997. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
SchebJohn M.IILyonsWilliam. 2000. "The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court." Social Science Quarterly81: 928–40.
51.
SchebJohn M.LyonsWIlliam. 2001. “Judicial Behavior and Public Opinion: Popular Expectations Regarding the Factors that Influence Supreme Court Decisions.” Political Behavior23 (2): 181–93.
52.
StatonJeffrey K.VanbergGeorg. 2008. “The Value of Vagueness, Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions.” American Journal of Political Science52 (3): 504–19.
53.
ThibautJohnWalkerLaurens. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54.
TillerEmerson H.SpillerPablo T.. 1999. “Strategic Instruments: Legal Structure and Political Games in Administrative Law.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization15 (2): 349–77.
55.
TurnerIan R.2017. “Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision.” Journal of Theoretical Politics29 (1): 69–96.
56.
TylerTom R.2021. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
TylerTom R.TrinknerRick. 2018. Why Children Follow Rules: Legal Socialization and the Development of Legitimacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
58.
VanbergGeorg. 2015. “Constitutional Courts in Comparative Perspective: A Theoretical Assessment.” Annual Review of Political Science18: 167–85.
59.
ZilisMichael A.2018. “Minority groups and judicial legitimacy: Group affect and the incentives for judicial responsiveness.” Political Research Quarterly71 (2): 270–83.
60.
ZilisMichael A.2015. The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
61.
ZinkJames R.SpriggsJames F.ScottJohn T.. 2009. “Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals’ Views of Court Opinions.” Journal of Politics71 (3): 909–25.
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.
