Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T19:24:21.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sources and Consequences of Political Rhetoric

Issue Importance, Collegial Bargaining, and Disagreeable Rhetoric in Supreme Court Opinions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Michael Zilis  and
Justin Wedeking
Michael Zilis*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Justin Wedeking
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
*
Contact the corresponding author, Michael Zilis, at michael.zilis@uky.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do political actors use rhetoric after an initial policy battle? We explore factors that lead Supreme Court justices to integrate disagreeable rhetoric into opinions. Although disagreeable language has negative consequences, we posit that justices pay this cost for issues with high personal significance. At the same time, we argue that integrating disagreeable rhetoric has a deleterious effect on the institution by reducing majority coalition size. Examining opinions from 1946 to 2011 using text-based measures of disagreeable rhetoric, we model the language of opinion writing as well as explore the consequences for coalition size. Our findings suggest serious implications for democratic institutions and political rhetoric.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Fall 2020 , pp. 203 - 227
Copyright
© 2020 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

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.)

Footnotes

This manuscript was submitted and accepted with Kevin McGuire as editor.

References

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): 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1994. “What Judges Want: Judges’ Goals and Judicial Behavior.” Political Research Quarterly 47:649–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Johnson, Timothy R., and Wedeking, Justin. 2012. Oral Arguments and Coalition Formation on the U.S. Supreme Court: A Deliberate Dialogue. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Owens, Ryan J., and Wedeking, Justin. 2016. “Herding Scorpions: The Chief Justice as Social Leader.” In The Chief Justice: Appointment and Influence, ed. Danelski, David and Ward, Artemus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Owens, Ryan J., Wedeking, Justin, and Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2016. U.S. Supreme Court Opinions and Their Audiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Treul, Sarah A., Johnson, Timothy R., and Goldman, Jerry. 2011. “Emotions, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 73 (2): 572–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, William D., and Hacker, Hans J. 2010. “‘The Brooding Spirit of the Law’: Supreme Court Justices Reading Dissents from the Bench.” Justice Systems Journal 31 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Brader, Ted. 2005. “Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 388–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, Amanda C., and Ringsmuth, Eve M. 2016. “Jeremiad or Weapon of Words? The Power of Emotive Language in Supreme Court Dissents.” Journal of Law and Courts 4 (1): 159–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2015. “Justice Scalia: Why He’s a Bad Influence.” Los Angeles Times, July 14. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0714-chemerinsky-scalia-bad-example-20150714-story.html.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S., and Carrubba, Clifford J. 2012. “A Theory of Opinion Writing in a Political Hierarchy.” Journal of Politics 74 (2): 584–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., Collins, Paul M., and Calvin, Bryan. 2011. “Lower Court Influence on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content.” Journal of Politics 73 (1): 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., Howard, Robert M., and Nixon, David C. 2006. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Use of the Federalist Papers.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2): 329–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., and Wedeking, Justin. 2014. “The (Dis)Advantage of Certainty: The Importance of Certainty in Language.” Law and Society Review 48 (1): 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Frank B., and Pennebaker, James W. 2014. “The Language of the Roberts Court.” Michigan State Law Review, no. 4:853–94.Google Scholar
de Vogue, Ariane. 2015. “Roberts Talks Leadership in Discussion on Supreme Court.” CNN, November 21. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/21/politics/john-roberts-charles-evans-hughes/.Google Scholar
de Vogue, Ariane, and Cole, Devan. 2019. “Supreme Court Continues Open Feud over Last-Minute Death Penalty Appeals.” CNN, May 13. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/politics/supreme-court-death-penalty-late-night-rulings/index.html.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Kifer, Martin J., and Parkin, Michael. 2009. “Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 103 (3): 343–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Hoekstra, Valerie, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 1998. “Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” Journal of Politics 60 (3): 801–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 2001. “The Norm of Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (2): 362–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farganis, Dion, and Wedeking, Justin. 2014. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings in the U.S. Senate: Reconsidering the Charade. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridkin, Kim L., and Kenney, Patrick J. 2011. “Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 307–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2011. “The Rhetoric Revival in Political Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 14:159–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstein, Josh. 2015. “Supreme Court Justices Stop Playing Nice.” Politico, June 26. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/supreme-court-justices-antonin-scalia-samuel-alito-119486.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Kenyatta Spence, Lester. 2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2): 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grose, Christian R., Malhotra, Neil, and Van Houweling, Robert Parts. 2015. “Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain Their Policy Positions and How Citizens React.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 724–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel J. 2014. “Public Attitudes toward Immigration.” Annual Review of Political Science 17:225–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L. 1992. “Leadership and Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 54 (4): 1158–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Robert J. 2006. “The Use of Rhetorical Sources by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Law and Society Review 40 (4): 817–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Robert J., and Guidry-Leingang, Kansas. 2017. “The Use of Contentious Rhetoric on the U.S. Supreme Court: A Historical Perspective.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, January 2017, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Black, Ryan C., and Ringsmuth, Eve M. 2009. “Hear Me Roar: What Provokes Supreme Court Justices to Dissent from the Bench.” Minnesota Law Review 93:1560–81.Google Scholar
Johnston, Christopher D., and Bartels, Brandon L. 2010. “Sensationalism and Sobriety: Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes toward American Courts.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (2): 260–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoll, Benjamin R., Redlawsk, David P., and Sanborn, Howard. 2011. “Framing Labels and Immigration Policy Attitudes in the Iowa Caucuses: Trying to Out-Tancredo Tancredo.” Political Behavior 33 (3): 433–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R. 1985. “Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1): 119–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Lance N., and Christensen, William F. 2012. “When Justices (Subconsciously) Attack: The Theory of Argumentative Threat and the Supreme Court.” Oregon Law Review 91:933–60.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F., and Wahlbeck, Paul J. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, George E., Russell Neuman, W., and MacKuen, Michael. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Alpheus T. 1956. Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Oxley, Zoe M., and Clawson, Rosalee A. 1997. “Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects.” Political Behavior 19 (3): 221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., and Wedeking, Justin. 2011. “Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of U.S. Supreme Court Opinions.” Law and Society Review 45 (4): 1027–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., Wedeking, Justin, and Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2013. “How the Supreme Court Alters Opinion Language to Evade Congressional Review.” Journal of Law and Courts 1 (1): 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, James W., and King, Laura A. 1999. “Linguistic Styles: Language Use as an Individual Difference.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1296–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennebaker, James W., Mehl, Matthias R., and Niederhoffer, Kate G. 2003. “Psychological Aspects of Natural Language Use: Our Words, Our Selves.” Annual Review of Psychology 54 (1): 547–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peppers, Todd C. 2006. Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Douglass, and Zorn, Christopher J. 2016. “Troll-in-Chief? Affective Opinion Content and the Influence of the Chief Justice.” In The Chief Justice: Appointment and Influence, ed. Danelski, David and Ward, Artemus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1996. The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Salamone, Michael F. 2014. “Judicial Consensus and Public Opinion: Conditional Response to Supreme Court Majority Size.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (2): 320–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, Charles R. 2008. “Partisanship, Ideology, and Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5 (1): 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Buell, Emmett H. 2003. “You Take the High Road and I’ll Take the Low Road? The Interplay of Attack Strategies and Tactics in Presidential Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 65 (2): 518–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaperdas, Stergios, and Grofman, Bernard. 1995. “Modeling Negative Campaigning.” American Political Science Review 89 (1): 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Joseph L. 2017. “Getting Personal in Supreme Court Opinions.” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 54:195–207.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Segal, Jeffrey A., Ruger, Theodore J., and Benesh, Sara C. 2018. Supreme Court Database, version 2018, release 2. http://supremecourtdatabase.org.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F., Maltzman, Forrest, and Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1999. “Bargaining on the Supreme Court: Justices’ Responses to Majority Opinion Drafts.” Journal of Politics 61 (2): 485–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2014. “Unanimity and Disagreement on the Supreme Court.” Cornell Law Review 100:769–824.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1993. Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Yla R., and Pennebaker, James W. 2009. “The Psycho-Logical Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29 (1): 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urofsky, Melvin I. 2017. Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J., Spriggs, James F., and Maltzman, Forrest. 1999. “The Politics of Dissents and Concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Politics Research 27 (4): 488–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Artemus, and Weiden, David L. 2006. Sorcerers’ Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Wedeking, Justin. 2010. “Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (3): 617–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedeking, Justin, and Zilis, Michael A. 2018. “Disagreeable Rhetoric and the Prospect of Public Opposition: Opinion Moderation on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (2): 380–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whissell, Cynthia. 1989. “The Dictionary of Affect in Language.” In Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience, ed. Plutchik, R. and Kellerman, H., 113–31. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Whissell, Cynthia, Fournier, M., Pelland, R., and Makarec, K.. 1986. “The Dictionary of Affect in Language: Reliability, Validity, and Applications.” Perpetual and Motor Skills 62:875–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Lori, and Soroka, Stuart. 2012. “Affective News: The Automated Coding of Sentiment in Political Texts.” Political Communication 29 (2): 205–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilis, Michael A. 2015. The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilis, Michael A., Wedeking, Justin, and Denison, Alexander. 2017. “Hitting the ‘Bullseye’ in Supreme Court Coverage: News Quality in the Court’s 2014 Term.” Elon Law Review 9 (2): 489–523.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.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 909–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Zilis and Wedeking supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 315.6 KB