The Role of Public Opinion in Supreme Court Confirmations JONATHAN P . KASTELLEC , JEFFREY R . LAX , AND

2012 ◽  
pp. 41-58
Keyword(s):  
1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Mishler ◽  
Reginald S. Sheehan

Although normative questions about the role of the Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution have long excited controversy in democratic theory, empirical questions about how far the Court acts contrary to majoritarian opinion have received less attention. Time series analyses for the period 1956–89 indicate the existence of a reciprocal and positive relationship between long-term trends in aggregate public opinion and the Court's collective decisions. The Court's ideological composition changes in response to previous shifts in the partisan and ideological orientation of the president and Congress. The Court also responds to public opinion at the margins even in the absence of membership change. Since 1981, the relationship has vanished or turned negative in direction. The Court's ideological balance has been upset by an unbroken string of conservative-to-moderate appointments, thereby undermining the dynamics that promote judicial responsiveness and raising questions about the majoritarianism of the contemporary and future Court.


2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda C. Bryan

Arguably the most influential power the U.S. Supreme Court has is the power to choose which cases to decide. This power allows the nation’s only unelected branch of government to choose either to weigh in on key political controversies or avoid them completely. Here, I take one of the first case-level looks at the role of public opinion in the Court’s agenda-setting process. I argue justices vote to hear cases when they are likely to agree with public opinion on the outcome and eschew cases when they are out of step with the American people. However, the effect of public opinion depends on the political environment, especially on the level of public support the Court enjoys, the salience of the issue, and the case’s legal importance.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9(3)) ◽  
pp. 308-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luz Muñoz ◽  
David Moya

Environmental NGOs in Spain are well known policy actors. Since the nineties some of them have been invited to participate in governmental committees and/or to provide expertise to Parliamentary committees. They have also an important role in mobilizing public opinion to defend and protect the environment. We know less though about how do they intervene in the judicial arena. In the framework of a growing role of the Courts in the field of environmental governance, the goal of this paper is to analyze to what extent Spanish NGOs resorted to the judicial arena, specifically the Supreme Court, to enforce international and European higher standards of environmental protection and advocated against wrong or inadequate praxis in the implementation of environmental regulations. Several non-judicial factors seem to have strengthened that trend in Spain: increasing environmental national and European regulation as well as the NGOs organizational capacity to make judicial claims in line with their policy preferences. Desde la década de los noventa, las ONG medioambientales de España participan en comités gubernamentales y/o como expertas en los comités parlamentarios; además de tener un papel importante en la movilización de la opinión pública. En cambio, sabemos menos sobre hasta qué punto recurren a la arena judicial. En el contexto de un creciente de papel de los tribunales en el campo de la gobernanza ambiental, el objetivo de este documento es analizar en qué medida las ONG españolas inician litigios, específicamente en el Tribunal Supremo, para exigir el cumplimiento de los estándares internacionales y europeos de protección del medio ambiente o en contra de malas praxis. Varios factores no judiciales parecen haber reforzado esa tendencia en España: el aumento de la regulación ambiental nacional y europea, así como la capacidad organizativa de las ONG para iniciar litigios en línea con su posición sobre una política determinada.


Author(s):  
Haidar Moukdad

Sample contributions by Arab contributors to a discussion forum were analyzed to study the role of the Web in promoting free speech and demystifying long held views of Arab public opinion. The findings of the study highlight the importance of the role played by the Web in promoting free speech among traditionally repressed populations, and provide insights that will help in correcting misconceptions about Arab public opinion.Un échantillonnage d’interventions par des participants arabes à un forum de discussion a été analysé afin d’étudier le rôle du Web dans le développement de la liberté de parole et la démystification des préjugés concernant l’opinion publique arabe. Les résultats de l’étude mettent en lumière l’importance du rôle joué par le Web dans le développement de la liberté de parole parmi les populations traditionnellement réprimées et offrent des idées qui aideront à corriger les idées préconçues concernant l’opinion publique arabe. 


Author(s):  
G. M. Ditchfield

Explanations of the abolition of the slave trade have been the subject of intense historical debate. Earlier accounts tended to play up the role of individual, heroic abolitionists and their religious, particularly evangelical, motivation. Eric Williams argued that the decline in profitability of the ‘Triangular trade’ was important in persuading people that the slave trade hindered, rather than helped, economic progress. More recent work has rehabilitated the role of some abolitionists but has set this alongside the importance of campaigning and petitioning in shifting public opinion. The role that the slaves themselves played in bringing attention to their plight is also now recognized. Consequently, the importance of abolitionism for a sense of Dissenting self-identity and as part of broader attempts to influence social reform needs to be reconsidered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document