Policy Disagreement and Judicial Legitimacy: Evidence from the 1937 Court-Packing Plan

Badas, Alex

doi:10.1086/705385

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, opinions of the court and nominees appear to be sufficiently partisan. Indeed, a growing literature demonstrates that the public's opinions of the court and preferences for nominees are shaped by partisan, ideological, and policy agreement (Gimpel and Wolpert, 1996; Bartels and Johnston, 2012; Christenson and Glick, 2015, 2019; Badas, 2016, 2019a,2019b; Sen, 2017). Moreover, partisan fighting and elite rhetoric further polarize these types of opinions (Rogowski and Stone, 2019).…”

Section: The Supreme Court As An Electoral Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

Badas

Simas

2021

PSRM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial nominations, particularly those to the Supreme Court, have been a salient topic in recent presidential and senate elections. However, there has been little research to determine whether judicial nominations motivate political behavior. Across three studies we demonstrate the important role judicial nominations play in influencing political behavior. In Study 1, we analyze the extent to which voters perceive judicial nominations as an important electoral issue. We find that Republicans—and especially strong Republicans—are more likely to perceive judicial nominations as important. In Study 2, we analyze how congruence with an incumbent Senator's judicial confirmation votes influences voters’ decision to vote for the incumbent. We find that congruence with a Senator's judicial confirmation votes is a strong predictor of vote choice. Finally, in Study 3, we analyze data from an original conjoint experiment aimed at simulating a Senate primary election where voters must select among co-partisans. We find that Republican subjects are more likely to select a primary candidate who prioritizes confirming conservative Supreme Court nominees. Among Democratic subjects, however, we find that Democratic candidates who prioritize the Court might actually suffer negative electoral consequences. Overall, our results demonstrate the importance of judicial nominations as an electoral issue.

show abstract

Section: The Supreme Court As An Electoral Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

Badas

Simas

2021

PSRM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the level of individual decisions, motives are also important drivers of perceptions of legitimacy in the legal studies literature on legitimacy, which mostly focuses on popular perceptions of legitimacy of institutions like the Supreme Court or the police. For instance, Badas (2019) showed that when a court hands down a decision with which one disagrees, individuals think the decision was motivated by extrinsic factors like politics and ideology and is, therefore, illegitimate. Badas (2019), Bartels and Johnston (2013), and Christenson and Glick (2015) also suggest that policy disagreements and ideology influence perceptions of the legitimacy of a given court decision and the institution of the judiciary as a whole; when a court makes a decision with which individuals disagree or negatively affects those individuals, they tend to see the court as less legitimate.…”

Section: Decision Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Badas (2019) showed that when a court hands down a decision with which one disagrees, individuals think the decision was motivated by extrinsic factors like politics and ideology and is, therefore, illegitimate. Badas (2019), Bartels and Johnston (2013), and Christenson and Glick (2015) also suggest that policy disagreements and ideology influence perceptions of the legitimacy of a given court decision and the institution of the judiciary as a whole; when a court makes a decision with which individuals disagree or negatively affects those individuals, they tend to see the court as less legitimate. At the same time, Gibson and Caldeira (2009) and Gibson et al (2005) have shown that repeated exposure to symbols of authority create a positivity bias that insulates institutions like the Supreme Court from legitimacy penalties.…”

Section: Decision Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, we contribute to the business ethics scholarship on legitimacy by considering it through the lens of independent variables-decision importance, procedural governance, and outcomes-that have not been studied in the business ethics literature (Badas, 2019;Gibson & Caldeiera, 2009;Tyler, 2006Tyler, /1990. Finally, we contribute to public policy as regulators and firms struggle to understand how to improve ADM systems for all stakeholders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions

Martin

Waldman

2022

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Firms use algorithms to make important business decisions. To date, the algorithmic accountability literature has elided a fundamentally empirical question important to business ethics and management: Under what circumstances, if any, are algorithmic decision-making systems considered legitimate? The present study begins to answer this question. Using factorial vignette survey methodology, we explore the impact of decision importance, governance, outcomes, and data inputs on perceptions of the legitimacy of algorithmic decisions made by firms. We find that many of the procedural governance mechanisms in practice today, such as notices and impact statements, do not lead to algorithmic decisions being perceived as more legitimate in general, and, consistent with legitimacy theory, that algorithmic decisions with good outcomes are perceived as more legitimate than bad outcomes. Yet, robust governance, such as offering an appeal process, can create a legitimacy dividend for decisions with bad outcomes. However, when arbitrary or morally dubious factors are used to make decisions, most legitimacy dividends are erased. In other words, companies cannot overcome the legitimacy penalty of using arbitrary or morally dubious factors, such as race or the day of the week, with a good outcome or an appeal process for individuals. These findings add new perspectives to both the literature on legitimacy and policy discussions on algorithmic decision-making in firms.

show abstract

“…Several studies have reported how presidential cues related to Supreme Court rulings (Collins and Eshbaugh‐Soha 2020, chap. 7; Montgomery, Rogol, and Kingsland 2019), the president's political agenda (Badas 2019), and the appointment process (Masood, Strickler, and Zilis 2019; Rogowski and Stone 2019; Zilis 2021) can influence approval of the Court.…”

Section: Presidential Foundations Of Supreme Court Job Approvalmentioning

confidence: 99%

All the President's Justices? The Impact of Presidential Copartisanship on Supreme Court Job Approval

Bartels

Kramon

2021

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supreme Court job approval is sensibly connected to its decisions, particularly salient ones. We fill a gap in the literature by theorizing—via a presidential appointment mechanism—how partisan alignment with the incumbent president (presidential copartisanship) influences Supreme Court job approval. Analysis of data from 1986 to 2019 (supplemented by longer‐term confidence data) shows that a president's copartisans are significantly more approving of the Court than outpartisans. Analysis of the American Panel Survey surrounding high‐salience events during the transition from Obama to Trump shows that Republicans, who significantly increase in Court approval following Trump's election victory, are anticipatory of Trump's prospects of changing the Court. Democrats, whose approval significantly declines only after Justice Gorsuch's confirmation, are not anticipatory but reactive to the president's confirmed appointee. Our findings generate new evidence of how the president structures public opinion toward the Court, which has important implications for judicial independence and legitimacy.

show abstract

Policy Disagreement and Judicial Legitimacy: Evidence from the 1937 Court-Packing Plan

Cited by 22 publications

References 37 publications

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions

All the President's Justices? The Impact of Presidential Copartisanship on Supreme Court Job Approval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About