scholarly journals Judicial tyranny or American justice? How partisan news’ coverage of polarizing Supreme Court decisions differs in framing the nation’s highest court

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Matthias
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Support ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fox News ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Realm ◽  
Partisan News

Abstract The U.S. Supreme Court is isolated from the public, yet dependent on high levels of public support to maintain its legitimacy. Due to its distance, the media has great control over how the nation’s highest court is presented to the public. Partisan news outlets cater their stories to audiences with distinct ideological beliefs, reinforcing them while opposing opposite beliefs. This can lead to partisan polarization, which has previously been exclusive to the political realm. However, recent polls have revealed an existing party gap in the Supreme Court’s level of public support, which implies a politicization of the judiciary branch. When the Supreme Court appears to be just another political institution or simply an extension of the other two governmental branches, its integrity is greatly impaired, and, as a consequence, the public’s confidence in the Justices is likely to deteriorate. This study analyzes Fox News’ and MSNBC’s news coverage of two pollogical stance aligns with the Court’s decision, the Supreme Court is presented as an apolitical institution, whereas it is politicized when the decision is contrary the channel’s partisan stance. This implies that the partisan divide, once only common to the political realm has now reached the judiciary.

Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 1209-1226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Caldeira
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Cross Sections ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Events ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Presidential Popularity ◽  
And Shifts ◽  
High Bench

Systematic study of changes in support for the U.S. Supreme Court across time has not been undertaken. Armed with a time series of observations from 1966 through 1984, I provide a description of the ebb and flow of public esteem for the Court. Then I outline and test several plausible propositions about the dynamics of support. Statistical analyses compel the conclusion that apart from a relatively constant core of support, increases in judicial activism, inflation, and solicitude for the rights of the accused decreased confidence in the Court; the events surrounding Watergate and increases in presidential popularity and the public salience of the Court brought about increased popular esteem for the high bench. Previous scholars, based on cross-sections of individuals, have emphasized the public's ignorance of and disinterest in the Supreme Court and judicial policy making. The responsiveness of public support for the Court in the aggregate to political events and shifts in the behavior of the justices stands in stark contrast to the conventional image of United States citizenry as singularly out of touch with and unmoved by the Supreme Court.

Public Opinion & the Supreme Court: The Puzzling Case of Abortion

Daedalus ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 141 (4) ◽  
pp. 69-82
Author(s):  
Linda Greenhouse
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political System ◽  
The Political ◽  
Public Response ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mass Behavior ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Roe V Wade ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between the Supreme Court and public opinion remains ambiguous, despite efforts over many years by scholars both of the Court and of mass behavior to decipher it. Certainly Supreme Court Justices live in the world, and are propelled by the political system to their life-tenured positions. And certainly the Court, over time, appears to align itself with the broadly defined public mood. But the mechanism by which this occurs–the process by which the Court and the public engage one another in a highly attenuated dialogue–remains obscure. The Court's 1973 abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, offers a case in point. As the country began to reconsider the wisdom of the nineteenth-century criminalization of abortion, which voices did the Justices hear and to which did they respond? Probing beneath the surface of the public response to Roe serves to highlight rather than solve the puzzle.

The tenure of English judges

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. H. McIlwain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Object ◽  
William Iii ◽  
Science Association

At the meeting of the Political Science Association last year, in the general discussion, on the subject of the recall, I was surprised and I must admit, a little shocked to hear our recall of judges compared to the English removal of judges on address of the houses of parliament.If we must compare unlike things, rather than place the recall beside the theory or the practice of the joint address, I should even prefer to compare it to a bill of attainder.In history, theory and practice the recall as we have it and the English removal by joint address have hardly anything in common, save the same general object.Though I may not (as I do not) believe in the recall of judges, this paper concerns itself not at all with that opinion, but only with the history and nature of the tenure of English judges, particularly as affected by the possibility of removal on address. I believe a study of that history will show that any attempt to force the address into a close resemblance to the recall, whether for the purpose of furthering or of discrediting the latter, is utterly misleading.In the history of the tenure of English judges the act of 12 and 13 William III, subsequently known as the Act of Settlement, is the greatest landmark. The history of the tenure naturally divides into two parts at the year 1711. In dealing with both parts, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself strictly to the judges who compose what since 1873 has been known as the supreme court of judicature.

Public Opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court: FDR's Court-packing Plan

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 1139-1153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Caldeira
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Critical Periods ◽  
Gallup Poll ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Historical Episode ◽  
The Mass Media

I show the intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court during one of the most critical periods of U.S. political history, the four months of 1937 during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to “pack” the high bench with friendly personnel. Over the period from 3 February through 10 June 1937, the Gallup Poll queried national samples on 18 separate occasions about FDR's plan. These observations constitute the core of my analyses. I demonstrate the crucial influence of judicial behavior and the mass media in shaping public opinion toward the Supreme Court. This research illuminates the dynamics of public support for the justices, contributes to a clearer understanding of an important historical episode, shows the considerable impact of the mass media on public attitudes toward the Court, and adds more evidence on the role of political events in the making of public opinion.

Reality Asserts Itself: Public Opinion on Iraq and the Elasticity of Reality

2010 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A. Baum ◽  
Tim Groeling
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Public Support ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sustained Change ◽  
Disaggregated Data ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
Over Time

AbstractPrevailing theories hold that U.S. public support for a war depends primarily on its degree of success, U.S. casualties, or conflict goals. Yet, research into the framing of foreign policy shows that public perceptions concerning each of these factors are often endogenous and malleable by elites. In this article, we argue that both elite rhetoric and the situation on the ground in the conflict affect public opinion, but the qualities that make such information persuasive vary over time and with circumstances. Early in a conflict, elites (especially the president) have an informational advantage that renders public perceptions of “reality” very elastic. As events unfold and as the public gathers more information, this elasticity recedes, allowing alternative frames to challenge the administration's preferred frame. We predict that over time the marginal impact of elite rhetoric and reality will decrease, although a sustained change in events may eventually restore their influence. We test our argument through a content analysis of news coverage of the Iraq war from 2003 through 2007, an original survey of public attitudes regarding Iraq, and partially disaggregated data from more than 200 surveys of public opinion on the war.

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

The Company They Keep

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Baum ◽  
Neal Devins
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Dominant Ideology ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The U.S

Today’s ideological division on the U.S. Supreme Court is also a partisan division: all the Court’s liberals were appointed by Democratic presidents, all its conservatives by Republican presidents. That pattern never existed in the Court until 2010, and this book focuses on how it came about and why it’s likely to continue. Its explanation lies in the growing level of political polarization over the last several decades. One effect of polarization is that potential nominees will reflect the dominant ideology of the president’s political party. Correspondingly, the sharpened ideological division between the two political parties has given presidents stronger incentives to give high priority to ideological considerations. In addition to these well-known effects of polarization, The Company They Keep explores what social psychologists have taught us about people’s motivations. Justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. In an era of strong partisan polarization, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological elites, and justices such as Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg live in milieus populated by like-minded elites that reinforce their liberalism or conservatism during their tenure on the Supreme Court. By highlighting and documenting this development, the book provides a new perspective on the Court and its justices.

Ustalenie właściwości organu administracji publicznej w zakresie prowadzenia egzekucji obowiązkowych szczepień ochronnych i występowania z wnioskiem o ukaranie za uchylanie się od tego obowiązku

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (70) ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Sebastian Czechowicz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
The State ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Preventive Vaccination ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Legislative Changes

The article is devoted to determine the authority competent to carry out the execution of the obligation to vaccinate, as well as the authority competent to apply for punishment of those who persistently evade preventive vaccinations on the basis of the Code of Misdemeanours in Poland. After analysing the competencies of the public administration bodies and comparing them with the judicial decisions of the administrative courts and the Supreme Court issued in cases involving mandatory preventive vaccination, which present an inconsistent line of jurisprudence, the author concludes that the enforcement body is the province governor. However, it is necessary to postulate legislative changes, primarily in the area of the possible transfer of competencies from the province governor to the State Sanitary Inspection.

Judicial Power in a Political World

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Crowe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Rhetoric ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
Institution Building ◽  
Political Arena ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Relationship

This concluding chapter synthesizes the book's main findings about the architectonic politics of judicial institution building and contextualizes them within contemporary debates. It also reflects upon the lessons of the more than 200-year historical lineage of the institutional judiciary for our understanding of judicial power in America. More specifically, it considers the place of the federal judiciary in America's past and future in empirical and normative terms, respectively. It argues that both political rhetoric and academic exegesis about the Supreme Court embody a fundamentally incorrect presumption about the judiciary being external to politics, and that such presumption leads to a series of misconceptions about the relationship between judicial power and democratic politics. The chapter offers a conception that not only locates the judicial branch squarely within the political arena but also places substantially greater emphasis on its cooperation rather than conflict with other actors and institutions in that arena.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document