Presidential Rhetoric and Supreme Court Decisions

Abstract

Despite the centrality of speeches to the American presidency, no research has specifically investigated the frequency of presidential public commentary about Supreme Court decisions. We do so and also examine why presidents discuss Supreme Court cases in their public comments from the Eisenhower to Obama administrations. Our empirical findings support our theoretical expectations in two primary ways. First, presidents speak most frequently after cases have been decided. Second, the monthly volume of presidential remarks on Court cases is shaped to varying degrees by presidents' desires to bolster their reelections, policy goals, and historical legacies. By shedding new light on why presidents comment publicly on Supreme Court cases, this research contributes to our understanding of presidential speechmaking, executive-judicial branch interactions, and how norms and institutions shape the behavior of political actors.

Presidential Rhetoric and U.S. Supreme Court Rulings: The Effect of Going Public on Citizen Evaluations of Institutions and Policy

“…In detailing interbranch relationships, it is well established that both presidents and the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are motivated to achieve personal and institutional goals. Presidents are motivated by, and actively pursue, preferred policy, developing a legacy of achievement, and getting reelected (Canes‐Wrone ; Eshbaugh‐Soha and Collins ; Light ; Moe ; Popkin ). Similarly, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are concerned with maintaining institutional standing and the pursuit of policy preferences they wish to see implemented into law (Canon and Giles ; Sala and Spriggs ; Segal and Spaeth ).…”

“…Further, statements on recent Supreme Court rulings may serve to influence public perceptions of the decisions. Presidents can signal their position on Court policies to other governmental actors and the public, and impact implementation of rulings (Eshbaugh‐Soha and Collins ). Thus, public statements either promoting or criticizing Court rulings may serve to influence individual evaluations of the policy at hand.…”

The Political Responsiveness of Violent Crime Prosecution

“…Summary statistics on all independent variables are provided in the supplemental material, and a summary of the expected direction of effects for these variables is provided in Table 1. To account for the potential signaling effect of presidential rhetoric, we follow Whitford and Yates (2009), Edwards and Wood (1999), Eshbaugh-Soha (2008), Eshbaugh-Soha and Collins (2015), Holmes (2007), and others, and code Presidential Rhetoric appearing in the Public Papers of the President (Peters and Woolley 2017). 7 To measure presidential rhetoric, we count the number of sentences in presidential public statements each month that contain policy mentions of violent crime.…”