Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T07:31:06.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Costs of Policy Legitimation: A Test of the Political Capital Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2022

David Fontana
Affiliation:
The George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC, USA
Christopher N. Krewson*
Affiliation:
Political Science Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: chris_krewson@byu.edu

Abstract

We test the political capital hypothesis that Supreme Court decisions simultaneously legitimate policy and harm support for the Court, at least under certain conditions. Our data suggest that the Court’s “legitimacy-conferring” capacity is weak. Learning that the Supreme Court upheld an affirmative action policy increased public support for the constitutionality and desirability of that policy, but only among Democrats pre-disposed towards that reaction. Furthermore, Democrats did not develop more favorable views of the Court. Consistent with the political capital hypothesis, Republicans developed more negative views of the Court when the Court associated itself with affirmative action policy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armaly, Miles T. and Lane, Elizabeth A.. Forthcoming. “Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research.Google Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A. and Gangl, Amy. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology 27 (4): 597614.Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. and Johnston, Christopher D.. 2012. “Political Justice? Perceptions of Politicization and Public Preferences Toward the Supreme Court Appointment Process.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (1): 105116.Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. and Johnston, Christopher D.. 2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 184199.Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. and Johnston, Christopher D.. 2020. Curbing the Court: Why the Public Constrains Judicial Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. and Mutz, Diana C. 2009. “Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership.” The Journal of Politics 71 (1): 249261.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F., Bratslavsky, Ellen, Finkenauer, Catrin, and Vohs, Kathleen D.. 2001. “Bad is Stronger than Good.” Review of General Psychology 5 (4): 323370.Google Scholar
Brickman, Danette and Peterson, David AM. 2006. “Public Opinion Reaction to Repeated Events: Citizen Response to Multiple Supreme Court Abortion Decisions.” Political Behavior 28 (1): 87112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canache, Damarys, Mondak, Jeffery J, Seligson, Mitchell A, and Tuggle, Bryce. 2022. “How Bad is Bad?: Dispositional Negativity in Political Judgment.” Political Behavior 44 (2): 915935.Google Scholar
Christenson, Dino P. and Glick, David M. 2015. “Issue-Specific Opinion Change: The Supreme Court and Health Care Reform.” Public Opinion Quarterly 79 (4): 881905.Google Scholar
Christenson, Dino P. and Glick, David M. 2019. “Reassessing the Supreme Court: How Decisions and Negativity Bias Affect Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly 72 (3): 637652.Google Scholar
Clawson, Rosalee A., Kegler, Elizabeth R and Waltenburg, Eric N. 2001. “The Legitimacy-Conferring Authority of the US Supreme Court: An Experimental Design.” American Politics Research 29 (6): 566591.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-maker.” J. Pub. L. 6: 279.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2016. “Party Identification and its Implications.” Oxford research encyclopedia of politics.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Martin, Andrew D. 2010. “Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme Court-Possibly Yes (But We’re Not Sure Why).” U. Pa. J. Const. L. 13: 263.Google Scholar
Fallon, Richard H. 2018. Law and legitimacy in the Supreme Court. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fontana, David. 2013. “The People’s Justice?Yale LJF 123: 447.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H. and Kosaki, Liane C. 1989. “Republican Schoolmaster: The US Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion.” The American Political Science Review, 751771.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. and Caldeira, Gregory A. 2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court?Law & Society Review 45 (1): 195219.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A, and Spence, Lester Kenyatta. 2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2): 187201.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. and Nelson, Michael J. 2015. “Is the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 162174.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., Lodge, Milton, and Woodson, Benjamin. 2014. “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law & Society Review 48 (4): 837866.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, Anke and Mondak, Jeffery J. 1998. “Do Attitudes Toward Specific Supreme Court Decisions Matter? The Impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (3): 633654.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew EK and Ura, Joseph Daniel. 2015. “Judicial Majoritarianism.” The Journal of Politics 77 (3): 818832.Google Scholar
Hanley, John, Salamone, Michael, and Wright, Matthew. 2012. “Reviving the Schoolmaster: Reevaluating Public Opinion in the Wake of Roe v. Wade.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 408421.Google Scholar
Hasen, Richard L. 2019. “Polarization and the Judiciary.” Annual Review of Political Science 22: 261276.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R and Martin, Andrew D. 1998. “The Public’s Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions.” American Political Science Review 92 (2): 299309.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 1990. “Perceived Legitimacy of Supreme Court Decisions: Three Functions of Source Credibility.” Political Behavior 12 (4): 363384.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 1992. “Institutional Legitimacy, Policy Legitimacy, and the Supreme Court.” American Politics Quarterly 20 (4): 457477.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 1994. “Policy Legitimacy and the Supreme Court: The Sources and Contexts of Legitimation.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (3): 675692.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. and Smithey, Shannon Ishiyama. 1997. “The Dynamics of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics 59 (4): 11141142.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. and Hansford, Thomas G. 2014. “Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (3): 620636.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57: 375400.Google Scholar
Ura, Joseph Daniel. 2014. “Backlash and Legitimation: Macro Political Responses to Supreme Court Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (1): 110126.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge university press.Google Scholar
Zilis, Michael A. 2018. “Minority Groups and Judicial Legitimacy: Group Affect and the Incentives for Judicial Responsiveness.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (2): 270283.Google Scholar
Zink, James R., Spriggs, James F and Scott, John T. 2009. “Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals’ Views of Court Opinions.” The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 909925.Google Scholar