James L. Gibson and Gregory Caldeira (Washington University, St. Louis - College of Arts & Sciences and Ohio State University - Department of Political Science) have posted Supreme Court Nominations, Legitimacy Theory, and the American Public: A Dynamic Test of the Theory of Positivity Bias on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Social scientists have taught us a great deal about the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, however, most research fails to consider how the public's views of political institutions like the Court change over time. But opinions can indeed change, with at least two types of “exogenous” sources - controversial Supreme Court decisions and politicized confirmation hearings - providing engines for attitude change. Events such as these may awaken attitudes from their hibernation, allowing for the possibility of updating. Two types of change seem possible: Attention to things judicial may be associated with exposure to highly legitimizing symbols of judicial power (e.g., robes), symbols that teach the lesson that the Court is different from ordinary political institutions and therefore is worthy of esteem. Gibson and Caldeira refer to this as “positivity bias.” Alternatively, events may teach that the Court is not different, that its role is largely “political,” and that the “myth of legality” really is a myth. Since so few studies have adopted a dynamic perspective on attitudes toward institutions, we know little about how these processes of attitude change take place.
Based on a three-wave national survey of ordinary Americans, we attempt to understand the influence of the Alito nomination/confirmation process on loyalty toward the Supreme Court. Our most important finding is that exposure to advertisements by interest groups for and against Alito's confirmation contributes to the erosion of support for the Court. These advertisements seem to encourage the belief that the Supreme Court is “just another political institution,” which, in the political climate in the country, is not an accolade. Politicized confirmation processes therefore seem to have considerable capacity to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself.
And a bit more from the text:
The characteristics about which we queried the respondents were:
- Strictly follow the law no matter what people in the country may want
- Try to maintain the appearance of being fair and impartial no matter what the cost
- Stay entirely independent of the president and the government
- Respect existing Supreme Court decisions by changing the law as little as possible
- Uphold the values of those who wrote our constitution two hundred years ago
The data clearly reveal that Americans expect their Supreme Court justices to maintain the appearance of fairness and impartiality (75.5 %, as well as, no doubt, to act in a fair and impartial way), and to uphold long-standing constitutional values (67.4 %). Given the ballyhoo from elites about precedent and “superprecedents” during the Senate hearings, perhaps the most surprising finding in these data is the relatively light weight the Americans accord to respecting existing Supreme Court decisions (only 37.3 % rate it as very important). Across the set of items, the average number of characteristics judged to be extremely important is 3.0 (with a median of 3, on a scale ranging from 0 to 5); nearly all respondents found something on our list to rate as very important.
Supercool paper. There's lots in this. Highly recommended.
