IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i4p1430-1441.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Views of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher N. Krewson
  • Jean R. Schroedel

Abstract

Objective We analyze public views of the Supreme Court following the confirmation hearings of Brett M. Kavanaugh. Methods We distributed an online survey days after the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh's appointment. Results Supreme Court legitimacy was weak following the hearings and perceptions of legitimacy varied based on partisanship, gender, and race. However, legitimacy was not strongly related to support for Kavanaugh. Furthermore, respondents consistently ranked political characteristics as the least important attributes of a nominee. Still, those satisfied with the Senate confirmation process ranked political attributes as more important. Conclusion Our findings portend some challenges for the Court in the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation. At the same time, Supreme Court legitimacy was only weakly tied to Kavanaugh, and legal qualities and moral character were more important to the public than a nominee's political attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2020. "Public Views of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1430-1441, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:4:p:1430-1441
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12820
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12820
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12820?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, 2009. "Confirmation Politics and The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 139-155, January.
    2. Stephen P. Nicholson & Thomas G. Hansford, 2014. "Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 620-636, July.
    3. James L. Gibson & Michael J. Nelson, 2015. "Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(1), pages 162-174, January.
    4. Tom S. Clark, 2009. "The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 971-989, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2023. "Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 364-369, May.
    2. James R. Rogers & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2020. "A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 435-459, July.
    3. Monika Stachowiak-Kudła & Janusz Kudła, 2023. "Measuring the prestige of administrative courts," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3637-3662, August.
    4. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    5. José Luis Castro-Montero & Edwin Alblas & Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2018. "The Court of Justice and treaty revision: A case of strategic leniency?," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 570-596, December.
    6. Eva‐Maria Trüdinger & Achim Hildebrandt & Sebastian Jäckle & Jonas Löser, 2021. "Responding to Policy Signals? An Experimental Study on Information about Policy Adoption and Data Retention Policy Support in Germany," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 830-843, March.
    7. Martin Andrew D. & Hazelton Morgan L.W., 2012. "What Political Science Can Contribute to the Study of Law," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 511-529, October.
    8. Ian R Turner, 2017. "Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 69-96, January.
    9. Matthew D. Montgomery & Michael P. Fix & Justin T. Kingsland, 2021. "Rigid rules and slippery standards: How the nature of U.S. Supreme Court precedents influences subsequent state court treatments," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2894-2906, November.
    10. Karakas, Leyla D., 2017. "Political rents under alternative forms of judicial review," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 86-96.
    11. Nicolas Lampach & Arthur Dyevre, 2020. "Choosing for Europe: judicial incentives and legal integration in the European Union," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 65-86, August.
    12. Stefanie A. Lindquist & Pamela C. Corley, 2011. "The Multiple-Stage Process of Judicial Review: Facial and As-Applied Constitutional Challenges to Legislation before the U.S. Supreme Court," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 467-502.
    13. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2021. "One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1484-1495, July.
    14. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    15. Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2013. "Public opinion and conflict in the separation of powers: Understanding the Honduran coup of 2009," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 105-127, January.
    16. Byungjun Yu & Saixing Zeng & Xiaohua Meng & Hanyang Ma & Daxin Sun, 2020. "Does natural environment prefer the right to the left? Governors' partisanship and corporate environmental performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1605-1616, July.
    17. von Haldenwang, Christian, 2016. "Measuring legitimacy: new trends, old shortcomings?," IDOS Discussion Papers 18/2016, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    18. Mehman Karimov, 2020. "The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Trade (Export and Import) in Turkey," European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 6, January -.
    19. Joshua B. Fischman, 2015. "Do the Justices Vote Like Policy Makers? Evidence from Scaling the Supreme Court with Interest Groups," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 269-293.
    20. Scott Simon Boddery & Damon Cann & Laura Moyer & Jeff Yates, 2023. "The role of cable news hosts in public support for Supreme Court decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 1045-1069, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:4:p:1430-1441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.