The Sources and Consequences of Polarization in the U.S. Supreme Court

Bartels, Brandon L.

doi:10.1017/cbo9781316287002.010

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is a stark contrast with voting patterns in Congress, where party line votes account for more than 70 percent of floor votes. This pattern likely reflects that the Supreme Court continues to perform its institutional role of resolving circuit splits and providing uniformity on legal issues (Bartels 2015).…”

Section: Polarization On the Supreme Court Polarization On The Supreme Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Judicial Ideology

Bonica

Sen

2021

Journal of Economic Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review the substantial literature on estimating judicial ideology, from the US Supreme Court to the lowest state court. As a way to showcase the strengths and drawbacks of various measures, we further analyze trends in judicial polarization within the US federal courts. Our analysis shows substantial gaps in the ideology of judges appointed by Republican Presidents versus those appointed by Democrats. Similar to trends in Congressional polarization, the increasing gap is mostly driven by a rightward movement by judges appointed by Republicans. We conclude by noting important avenues for future research in the study of the ideology of judges.

show abstract

Section: Polarization On the Supreme Court Polarization On The Supreme Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Judicial Ideology

Bonica

Sen

2021

Journal of Economic Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, many of the 2020 Democratic primary candidates have released proposals for judicial reforms that seek to undo or minimize the influence of President Trump's judicial nominees 29 . As candidates increasingly use the judiciary for electoral gains, it raises questions about how the judiciary can maintain its legitimacy and legalistic image in the face of increased importance, scrutiny, and polarization (Bartels and Johnston, 2012; Bartels, 2015). Furthermore, publishing lists of potential judicial nominees has implications for the capacity of the individuals named to be independent and fair judges (Black and Owens, 2016).…”

Section: Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Badas

Simas

2021

PSRM

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

“…For instance, nominations and confirmations are motivated by the desire to appoint more extreme judges (see Devins and Baum 2017; Epstein et al 2006). In addition, decisions on salient cases frequently reflect the left–right split that typifies other branches of government (Bartels 2015; Devins and Baum 2017). While this elite polarization may ultimately filter down to influence the average citizen (Hasen 2019), the masses’ evaluations of the Court seem relatively unfazed by such polarization among elites (Gibson 2007).…”

Section: Mass Polarization and Perceptions Of The Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affective Polarization and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court

Armaly

Enders

2021

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Support for the U.S. Supreme Court does not appear to be polarized on ideological or partisan lines. However, the form of polarization for which the mass political behavior field has amassed substantial support is affective in nature. We reconsider the hypothesis that polarization does not bear on Court support by examining the role of affective polarization. Using three sources of nationally representative survey data, we consistently find a negative relationship between affective polarization and both diffuse and specific support for the Court. Moreover, neither general nor Court-specific political sophistication mitigates the negative effect of affective polarization; rather, sophistication exacerbates affective polarization’s influence on support. Finally, panel data show that affective polarization precedes negative evaluations of the judiciary, though there is no support for the converse relationship. Evaluations of the Court are not free from the forces of polarization but are influenced by diverging extra-judicial emotional orientations toward in- and out-groups.

show abstract

The Sources and Consequences of Polarization in the U.S. Supreme Court

Cited by 10 publications

References 23 publications

Estimating Judicial Ideology

Estimating Judicial Ideology

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

Affective Polarization and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About