“Unpresidented!” or: What happens when the president attacks the federal judiciary on Twitter

Kromphardt, Christopher D.; Salamone, Michael F.

doi:10.1080/19331681.2020.1805389

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Events politicizing the judiciary—such as highly contentious and partisan fights over Supreme Court nominations (see Gibson & Caldeira, 2009; Krewson, 2023)—can also undermine judicial legitimacy by promulgating the view that the Court is “just another political institution” (see Gibson & Nelson, 2017). Direct elite attacks on institutions have also been addressed as possible causes of diminished institutional legitimacy (see Kromphardt & Salamone, 2021; Nelson & Gibson, 2019, but also see Armaly, 2018).…”

Section: Explicating the Theory Of Institutional Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory

Gibson

2024

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extant research has established that displeasure with a Supreme Court ruling typically has negligible consequences for institutional support, largely because, as legitimacy theory's positivity bias explains, judicial decisions are invariably delivered with the accoutrements of legitimizing symbols. The Court's ruling in Dobbs, abrogating a federal constitutional right to abortion services, may challenge legitimacy theory because displeasure with the ruling seems so widespread and intense. This research aims to determine whether the ruling lessened the Court's legitimacy. The general conclusion is that Dobbs produced a sizeable dent in institutional support, perhaps to an unprecedented degree, in part because abortion attitudes for many are infused with moral content and in part owing to the Court's substantial tilt to the right since 2020. Indeed, the Court's legitimacy may be at greater risk today than at any time since Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1930s attack on the institution.

show abstract

Section: Explicating the Theory Of Institutional Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory

Gibson

2024

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elite attacks against these norms pose a major threat to democratic stability. They can be especially damaging in segments of the public where support for democratic norms and emancipatory values is already low (Kromphardt & Salamone, 2021).…”

Section: Democratic Norms Elite Norm Violations and Behavioural Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Dodging the autocratic bullet: Enlisting behavioural science to arrest democratic backsliding

Abels,

Huttunen,

Lewandowsky

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a long history of research on democratic backsliding, the process itself---in which the executive branch amasses power and undermines democratic processes and institutions---remains poorly understood. We seek to shed light on the underlying mechanisms by studying democratic near misses: cases in which a period of autocratic governance is quickly reversed or full backsliding is prevented at the last minute. Building on the literature on near misses in socio-technical systems such as nuclear power plants, we adapt the drift-to-danger model to the study of democratic systems. Two key findings emerge: First, democratic backsliding is triggered by political elites pushing the boundaries of their power by violating norms, which are crucial yet vulnerable safeguards for democracy. Second, democratic backsliding is unpredictable and non-linear, being driven by the interaction between political elites and the public. Norm-violating elites may feel legitimised by a supportive public that sees norm violations as justified. At the same time, political elites may signal that norm-violating behaviour is acceptable, potentially leading the public to adopt anti-democratic beliefs and behaviours. We identify risk factors that make norm violations more likely and offer behavioural sciences-based interventions to address these violations.

show abstract

“…For example, when a judge ruled against him in a class-action lawsuit, Trump denigrated the judge and trial as biased citing the judge's Mexican heritage (Wolf 2018). To his mostly White supporters, such statements potentially reduce levels of confidence in the judiciary as objective and apolitical, which might have consequences for support for the judiciary (Kromphardt & Salamone 2021). These eroding levels of confidence, combined with the inclusion of racial diversity on the bench may shape perceptions of judicial legitimacy among White respondents in unique ways compared to racial minorities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Public support for American institutions, including the judiciary, have been trending downward for decades and this slide notably increased under the Trump Administration (Hetherington 2005; Kromphardt & Salamone 2021). For example, when a judge ruled against him in a class-action lawsuit, Trump denigrated the judge and trial as biased citing the judge’s Mexican heritage (Wolf 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Racial Representation on Judicial Legitimacy: White Reactions to Latinos on the Bench

Achury

Casellas

Hofer

et al. 2022

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite evidence that racial diversification has increased support for the judiciary, political scientists know little about the heterogeneous effects of diversification across different population segments. Previous research illustrates that including Black judges increases judicial legitimacy among the Black population, but it decreases the legitimacy of the courts among the White population. We expand on this knowledge by examining the impact of adding Latinos to the bench. Our survey experiment compares White respondents’ perception of the courts based on differing levels of Latino representation in the ruling panel. Does descriptive representation in the racialized issue area of immigration signal fairness and legitimacy to White respondents? Or does the inclusion of Latino jurists in immigration cases trigger racial animosity and decreasing support for the courts? We find that when the court rules against the White respondent’s preference, they tend to penalize all-White judicial panels that rule against the perceived interest of Latinos. Additionally, we find that when presented with a Latino majority panel, White respondents who disagree with the ruling are more likely to punish the anti-Latino decisions as their levels of group consciousness increase. Ultimately, our findings illustrate how judicial diversity may affect the countermajoritarian capacity of the judiciary.

show abstract

“Unpresidented!” or: What happens when the president attacks the federal judiciary on Twitter

Cited by 8 publications

References 27 publications

Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory

Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory

Dodging the autocratic bullet: Enlisting behavioural science to arrest democratic backsliding

The Impact of Racial Representation on Judicial Legitimacy: White Reactions to Latinos on the Bench

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About