The Shepherding of Local Public Opinion: The Supreme Court and Lamb's Chapel

Hoekstra, Valerie J.; Segal, Jeffrey A.

doi:10.2307/2960150

Cited by 105 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Racial resentment and ideology, two important and long-standing predispositions, also have an effect on agreement with the ruling: Conservatives and those who demonstrate higher levels of racial antipathy are more likely to favor the Court opinion against affirmative action. Consistent with recent research (see Hoekstra, 2000;Hoekstra & Segal, 1996), diffuse support for the Court also leads to greater agreement with the Court's decision.…”

Section: Research Findings: Whitessupporting

confidence: 82%

Support For A Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision

Clawson¹,

Waltenburg

2003

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unlike other policy-making institutions that actively attempt to shape public opinion, the Supreme Court is largely dependent upon others to disseminate its policy pronouncements to the public. One consequence: How the media frame the Court's actions can affect public support for Court policies. This article presents the results of an experiment designed to take soundings on the effect of different media frames on White and Black support for a controversial affirmative action ruling. Using stimuli we created based on coverage of the Adarand v. Pena (1995) decision in the Black press and the mainstream press, we find that media framing has a significant effect on agreement with the Court's policy among White subjects. For Blacks, the impact of the media framing is moderated by ideological predispositions. In addition, both White and Black support for the Court's ruling is influenced by the media portrayal of Justice Clarence Thomas.No policy-making institution in American government bores with a larger auger than the U.S. Supreme Court. It regularly hands down decisions with profound policy implications, giving shape and meaning to the basic constitutional structure, establishing the rules for social order, focusing political attention on sets of issues, and determining winners and losers. Yet, despite its substantial impact, the Earlier versions of this article were presented at the

show abstract

Section: Research Findings: Whitessupporting

confidence: 82%

Support For A Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision

Clawson¹,

Waltenburg

2003

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study demonstrated that message elaboration occurred during central processing, and attention to persuasive cues, such as source credibility, occurred during peripheral processing. Since the original test of the theory, the ELM has been applied successfully to a variety of contexts including counseling (e.g., Heesacker, 1986), politics (e.g., Hoekstra & Segal, 1996), health (e.g., Penner & Fritzsche, 1993), sexual stimuli (Bauserman, 1998), and employment interviews (Harris, 1989). Johnson and Eagly (1989) refer to the motivation manipulation in many ELM studies as outcome-relevant involvement.…”

Section: Application Of Relational Framing Theory To Social Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Social influence in groups: A comparative application of relational framing theory and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion

Henningsen¹,

Henningsen²,

Cruz³

et al. 2003

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This difference reflects an important substantive difference between the media and the judiciary as constraints on elected officials. 28 Although there is little empirical evidence on the question of how judicial validation or invalidation of a policy affects public opinion of the officials who enacted it, there is suggestive evidence that judicial rulings may affect public evaluations of the policies themselves (Clawson, Kegler, and Waltenburg 2001;Hoekstra and Segal 1996). 29 If we assume that the electoral strength function F is concave, then the legitimation effect will dampen the low-ability Leader's electoral incentive to propose a = x.…”

Section: Modified Gamementioning

confidence: 99%

Judicial Review as a Response to Political Posturing

Fox

Stephenson

2011

Am Polit Sci Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(Friedman 2002), and has assumed increasing salience internationally as the power and influence of courts around the world has grown (Hirschl 2004). Many have defended judicial review as a way to reduce or correct systematic failures in legislative and executive decision making--thereby reducing the divergence between actual policy choices and those that would prevail in an ideally functioning representative democracy. Appropriately designed judicial review, on this view, can be justified on democratic grounds, even if judicial review is not itself a democratic institution. Critics, however, argue that judicial review tends to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the pathologies of representative democracy, and that the costs of judicial review typically exceed whatever benefits it may have.We analyze judicial review as a potential response to a particular problem: The incentive of elected officials to "posture" by taking bold but unwarranted action in response to a perceived emergency in order to appear competent to the voters. We begin by providing a brief overview of this potential problem and the debates over whether judicial review is an appropriate remedy. We then turn to presenting a model of political agency, without judicial review, to show how this sort of posturing may arise. We then modify this model by introducing judicial review.We show that judicial review has two main effects on the frequency of posturing. First, judicial reviewWe are grateful to

show abstract

The Shepherding of Local Public Opinion: The Supreme Court and Lamb's Chapel

Cited by 105 publications

References 16 publications

Support For A Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision

Support For A Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision

Social influence in groups: A comparative application of relational framing theory and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion

Judicial Review as a Response to Political Posturing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About