IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v47y2003i2p354-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • James L. Gibson
  • Gregory A. Caldeira
  • Lester Kenyatta Spence

Abstract

It is conventional in research on the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court to rely on a survey question asking about confidence in the leaders of the Court to indicate something about the esteem with which that institution is regarded by the American people. The purpose of this article is to investigate the validity of this measure. Based on a nationally representative survey conducted in 2001, we compare confidence with several different measures of Court legitimacy. Our findings indicate that the confidence replies seem to reflect both short‐term and long‐term judgments about the Court, with the greater influence coming from satisfaction with how the Court is performing at the moment. We suggest a new set of indicators for measuring the legitimacy of the Court and offer some evidence on the structure of the variance in these items.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:47:y:2003:i:2:p:354-367
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-5907.00025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00025
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-5907.00025?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Damon Cann & Jeff Yates, 2021. "Evaluating diffuse support for state high courts among individuals with varying levels of policy agreement," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2824-2835, November.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Jonski Kamil, 2021. "Public Confidence in the Judiciary and the Police – Does Respondents Internalize Montesquieu’s Ideas?," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2022. "Mechanisms, measurements, and manifestations in evaluating the effects of confirmation hearings on Supreme Court legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1290-1294, September.
    8. 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.
    9. James R. Rogers & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2020. "A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 435-459, July.
    10. James L. Gibson*, 2007. "“Truth” And “Reconciliation” As Social Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 257-281, April.
    11. Jonas Tallberg & Michael Zürn, 2019. "The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 581-606, 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:wly:amposc:v:47:y:2003:i:2:p:354-367. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.