IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v32y2020i3p435-459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism

Author

Listed:
  • James R. Rogers

    (Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, USA)

  • Joseph Daniel Ura

    (Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, USA)

Abstract

Judicial protection of disfavored minorities against oppressive legislation in majoritarian separation-of-power systems raises a puzzle: Why don’t legislative majorities enacting discriminatory legislation curb judicial power when judges use their power to protect minorities and stymie the legislation? We answer this question by showing that judicial protection of disfavored minorities can emerge as an unintended by-product of majoritarian politics. We develop a model that includes the two aspects of judicial review Alexander Hamilton discusses in The Federalist No. 78: Judicial protection of disfavored minorities against hostile popular majorities, and judicial protection of majority interests against legislative depredation. It is the institutional linkage between these functions that induces popular majorities, within limits, to side with judges against legislatures even when those judges protect minorities that popular majorities want to oppress.

Suggested Citation

  • James R. Rogers & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2020. "A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 435-459, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:32:y:2020:i:3:p:435-459
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629820927784
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629820927784
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629820927784?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. Whittington, Keith E., 2005. "“Interpose Your Friendly Hand”: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 583-596, November.
    2. Gibson, James L. & Caldeira, Gregory A. & Baird, Vanessa A., 1998. "On the Legitimacy of National High Courts," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(2), pages 343-358, June.
    3. Fox, Justin & Stephenson, Matthew C., 2011. "Judicial Review as a Response to Political Posturing," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 397-414, May.
    4. Matthew C. Stephenson, 2004. "Court of Public Opinion: Government Accountability and Judicial Independence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 379-399, October.
    5. Dino P. Christenson & David M. Glick, 2015. "Chief Justice Roberts's Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court's Legitimacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(2), pages 403-418, February.
    6. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira & Lester Kenyatta Spence, 2003. "Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(2), pages 354-367, April.
    7. Ramseyer, J Mark, 1994. "The Puzzling (In)dependence of Courts: A Comparative Approach," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(2), pages 721-747, June.
    8. Christopher J. Casillas & Peter K. Enns & Patrick C. Wohlfarth, 2011. "How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 74-88, January.
    9. Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1975. "The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 875-901, December.
    10. Salzberger, Eli M., 1993. "A positive analysis of the doctrine of separation of powers, or: Why do we have an independent judiciary?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 349-379, December.
    11. Gibson, James L. & Caldeira, Gregory A. & Spence, Lester Kenyatta, 2003. "The Supreme Court and the US Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 535-556, October.
    12. Brandon L. Bartels & Christopher D. Johnston, 2013. "On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 184-199, January.
    13. Joseph Daniel Ura, 2014. "Backlash and Legitimation: Macro Political Responses to Supreme Court Decisions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 110-126, January.
    14. Mishler, William & Sheehan, Reginald S., 1993. "The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 87-101, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Gretchen Helmke, 2010. "The Origins of Institutional Crises in Latin America," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 737-750, July.
    17. 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.
    18. McGuire, Kevin T., 2004. "The Institutionalization of the U.S. Supreme Court," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 128-142, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Torun Dewan & John W Patty, 2020. "Editors’ introduction to JTP issue 32(3)," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 363-365, July.

    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. Nathan T. Carrington & Logan Strother, 2023. "Plugging the pipe? Evaluating the (null) effects of leaks on Supreme Court legitimacy," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 669-712, September.
    2. Cohen, Alon, 2014. "Independent judicial review: A blessing in disguise," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 209-220.
    3. Gretchen Helmke & Elena V. McLean, 2014. "Inducing independence: A strategic model of World Bank assistance and legal reform," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(4), pages 383-405, September.
    4. Agustin Casas & Federico Curci & Antoni-Italo De Moragas, 2022. "Checks and Balances and Nation Building: The Spanish Constitutional Court and Catalonia," Working Papers 189, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    5. Melcarne Alessandro & Ramello Giovanni B., 2015. "Judicial Independence, Judges’ Incentives and Efficiency," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 149-169, July.
    6. Fiorino, Nadia & Gavoille, Nicolas & Padovano, Fabio, 2015. "Rewarding judicial independence: Evidence from the Italian Constitutional Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 56-66.
    7. 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.
    8. Maor Zeev‐Wolf & Avital Mentovich, 2022. "The influence of the legislative and judicial branches on moral judgment and norm perception with the special case of judicial intervention," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1211-1232, October.
    9. Constantina P. Tridimas & George Tridimas, 2020. "Is the UK Supreme Court rogue to un-prorogue Parliament?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 205-225, April.
    10. Pushkar Maitra & Russell Smyth, 2004. "Judicial Independence, Judicial Promotion and the Enforcement of Legislative Wealth Transfers—An Empirical Study of the New Zealand High Court," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 209-235, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Matthew C. Stephenson, 2003. "“When the Devil Turns … ”: The Political Foundations of Independent Judicial Review," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 59-89, January.
    13. Ip Eric, 2012. "A Positive Theory of Constitutional Judicial Review: Evidence from Singapore and Taiwan," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(4), pages 1-43, January.
    14. Ganghof, Steffen & Manow, Philip, 2005. "Mechanismen der Politik: Strategische Interaktion im deutschen Regierungssystem," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 54, number 54.
    15. 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.
    16. Mordechai E. Schwarz, 2023. "A master of two servants: lessons from the israeli experience about the effect of separation of powers on public accountability and social welfare," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 59-87, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Jaroslaw Kantorowicz, 2014. "Judges as Fiscal Activists: Can Constitutional Review Shape Public Finance?," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 2, pages 79-104, June.
    19. George Tridimas, 2010. "Constitutional judicial review and political insurance," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 81-101, February.
    20. F. Andrew Hanssen, 2004. "Learning about Judicial Independence: Institutional Change in the State Courts," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 431-473, June.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:32:y:2020:i:3:p:435-459. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.