Recent research shows that many people support courts based on their ideological congruence with those courts and their decisions. But people likely hold varying degrees of intensity in their preferences for judges who will implement conservative or liberal policy. We suspect that court support is a function of that intensity. Our results agree. Court support turns on the intensity with which people prefer conservative, moderate, or liberal judges. In fact, accounting for the strength with which people prefer ideological judges explains more of their support for courts than some existing approaches.
ArmalyMiles T.2021. “Loyalty over Fairness: Acceptance of Unfair Supreme Court Procedures.” Political Research Quarterly74 (4): 927–940.
2.
BadasAlex. 2019. “Policy Disagreement and Judicial Legitimacy: Evidence from the 1937 Court-Packing Plan.” Journal of Legal Studies48 (2): 377–408.
3.
BairdVanessa A.2001. “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice.” Political Research Quarterly54 (2): 333–354.
4.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2012. “Political Justice? Perceptions of Politicization and Public Preferences toward the Supreme Court Appointment Process.” Public Opinion Quarterly76 (1): 105–116.
5.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science57 (1): 184–199.
6.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. Curbing the Court: Why the Public Constrains Judicial Independence. London: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
BryanAmanda C.KromphardtChristopher D.. 2016. “Public Opinion, Public Support, and Counter-attitudinal Voting on the US Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal37 (4): 298–317.
9.
CasperJonathan D.TylerTomFisherBonnie. 1988. “Procedural Justice in Felony Cases.” Law and Society Review22 (3): 483–508.
10.
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): 403–418.
11.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.. 2019. “Reassessing the Supreme Court: How Decisions and Negativity Bias Affect Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly72 (3): 637–652.
12.
CitrinJackStokerLaura. 2018. “Political Trust in a Cynical Age.” Annual Review of Political Science21: 49–70.
13.
ClarkTom SKastellecJonathan P. 2015. “Source Cues and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research43 (3): 504–535.
14.
DurrRobert H.MartinAndrew D.WolbrechtChristina. 2000. “Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science44 (4): 768–776.
15.
FarganisDion. 2012. “Do Reasons Matter? the Impact of Opinion Content on Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly65 (1): 206–216.
16.
GibsonJames L.1978. “Judges’ Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model.” American Political Science Review72 (3): 911–924.
17.
GibsonJames L.2011a. “A Note of Caution about the Meaning of “The Supreme Court Can Usually Be Trusted...””.
18.
GibsonJames L.2011b. What’s Law Got to Do with it? what Judges Do, Why They Do it, and What’s at Stake. Redwood City CA: Stanford University Press. Chapter Judging the Politics of Judging: Are Politicians in Robes Inevitably Illegitimate? 281-305 (Ch. 11).
19.
GibsonJames L.Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2012.
20.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2009a. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2009b. “Confirmation Politics and the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination.” American Journal of Political Science53 (1): 139–155.
22.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law and Society Review45 (1): 195–219.
23.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2012. “Campaign Support, Conflicts of Interest, and Judicial Impartiality: Can Recusals Rescue the Legitimacy of Courts?” Journal of Politics74 (1): 18–34.
24.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.Kenyatta SpenceLester. 2003. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 354–367.
25.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.Kenyatta SpenceLester. 2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly58 (2): 187–201.
26.
HaglinKathrynJordanSorenHiggins MerrillAlisonJosephUraDaniel. 2021. “Ideology and Specific Support for the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly74 (4): 955–969.
27.
JohnstonChristopher D.Sunshine HillygusD.BartelsBrandon L.. 2014. “Ideology, the Affordable Care Act Ruling, and Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Public Opinion Quarterly78 (4): 963–973.
28.
KrewsonChristopher N.OwensRyan J.. 2021a. “How State Judicial Selection Methods May Influence Views of US Supreme Court Nominees: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Journal of Law and Courts9.
29.
KrewsonChristopher N.OwensRyan J.. 2021b. “Public Support for Judicial Philosophies: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Journal of Law and Courts9 (1): 89–110.
30.
KrewsonChristopher N.OwensRyan J.. 2023. “Judicial Philosophy and the Public’s Support for Courts.” Political Research Quarterly76(2):944-960. doi:10.1177/10659129221119741
31.
LeeperThomas JHoboltSara BTilleyJames. 2020. “Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis28 (2): 207–221.
32.
MalholtraNeilJesseeStephen A.. 2014. “Ideological Proximity and Support for the Supreme Court.” Political Behavior36: 817–846.
33.
MasonLilliana. 2018. “Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities.” Public Opinion Quarterly82 (S1): 866–887.
34.
MondakJeffery JSmitheyShannon Ishiyama. 1997. “The Dynamics of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics59 (4): 1114–1142.
35.
NelsonMichael JUribe-McGuireAlicia. 2017. “Opportunity and Overrides: The Effect of Institutional Public Support on Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Decisions.” Political Research Quarterly70 (3): 632–643.
36.
NicholsonStephen P.HansfordThomas G.. 2014. “Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions.” American Journal Of Political Science58 (3): 620–636.
37.
RamirezMark D.2008. “Procedural Perceptions and Support for the US Supreme Court.” Political Psychology29 (5): 675–698.
38.
StoutenboroughJames WHaider-MarkelDonald P. 2008. “Public Confidence in the US Supreme Court: A New Look at the Impact of Court Decisions.” The Social Science Journal45 (1): 28–47.
39.
TylerTom R.2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology57: 375.
40.
TylerTom R.Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2021.
41.
WoodsonBenjamin. 2015. “Politicization and the Two Modes of Evaluating Judicial Decisions.” Journal of Law and Courts3 (2): 193–221.
42.
ZhirkovKirill. 2022. “Estimating and Using Individual Marginal Component Effects from Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis30 (2): 236–249.
43.
ZilisMichael. The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2015.
44.
ZinkJames R.SpriggsJames F.IIScottJohn T.. 2009. “Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals’ Views of Court Opinions.” Journal of Politics71 (3): 909–925.
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.
