Search results

The method in which a government policy is delivered—for example, as a tax break rather than a direct payment—could potentially have significant implications for how the public views that policy. This is an especially important consideration given the importance of indirect policy approaches like tax breaks to modern American governance. We employ a series of survey experiments to test whether citizens react more favorably to tax breaks than to equivalent spending programs. We find that citizens prefer tax breaks, particularly when they are the established means of intervention. When direct intervention is the status quo, or when any government involvement on the issue is unfamiliar, the preference is reduced. We also find an interactive effect for ideology, with conservatives strongly preferring tax breaks to direct intervention, though the effect is still present among liberals. This study establishes the importance of delivery mechanism to citizens' policy preferences and suggests that the policy status quo structures citizens' perceptions of policy proposals.

What motivates political actors with diverging interests to respect the Supreme Court's authority? A popular answer is that the public serves as the guardian of judicial independence by punishing elected officials who undermine the justices. Curbing the Court challenges this claim, presenting a new theory of how we perceive the Supreme Court. Bartels and Johnston argue that, contrary to conventional wisdom, citizens are not principled defenders of the judiciary. Instead, they seek to limit the Court's power when it suits their political aims, and this inclination is heightened during times of sharp partisan polarization. Backed by a wealth of observational and experimental data, Bartels and Johnston push the conceptual, theoretical, and empirical boundaries of the study of public opinion of the courts. By connecting citizens to the strategic behavior of elites, this book offers fresh insights into the vulnerability of judicial institutions in an increasingly contentious era of American politics.

"One of the more enduring topics of concern for empirically-oriented scholars of law and courts-and political scientists more generally -is how research can be more rectly relevant to broader audiences outside of academia. A significant part of this issue goes back to a seeming disconnect between empirical and normative scholars of law and courts that has increased in recent years.Brandon Bartels and Chris Bonneau argue that being attuned to the normative implications of one's work enhances the quality of empirical work, not to mention makes it substantially more interesting to both academics and non-academic practitioners. Their book's mission is to examine how the normative implications of empirical work in law and courts can be more visible and relevant to audiences beyond academia. Written by scholars of political science, law, and sociology, the chapters in the volume offer ideas on a methodology for communicating normative implications in a balanced, nuanced, and modest manner. The contributors argue that if empirical work is strongly suggestive of certain policy or institutional changes, scholars should make those implications known so that information can be diffused. The volume consists of four sections that respectively address the general enterprise of developing normative implications of empirical research, law and decisionmaking, judicial selection, and courts in the broader political and societal context.This volume represents the start of a conversation on the topic of how the normative implications of empirical research in law and courts can be made more visible. This book will primarily interest scholars of law and courts, as well as students of judicial politics. Other subfields of political science engaging in empirical research will also find the suggestions made in the book relevant. "--

Jurisprudential regimes theory (JRT) posits that legal change on the U.S. Supreme Court occurs in a drastic, structural‐break‐like manner. Methodological debates present conflicting evidence for JRT, which has implications for the important law versus ideology debate. We confront this debate by first elaborating two alternative theoretical perspectives to JRT—evolutionary change and legal stability. Our analytical framework focuses on two key substantive effects of jurisprudential categories on the Court's case outcomes—relative differences between categories over multiple time periods and longitudinal differences across time periods. Importantly, different pieces of empirical evidence can provide support for different dynamic processes. The extent to which "law matters" is not necessarily tied to one particular model of legal change. Empirical analysis of updated and backdated free expression data generates key findings consistent with JRT, legal stability, and evolutionary change. We discuss the implications of the results for understanding legal change and legal influence.

Conventional wisdom says that individuals' ideological preferences do not influence Supreme Court legitimacy orientations. Most work is based on the assumption that the contemporary Court is objectively conservative in its policymaking, meaning that ideological disagreement should come from liberals and agreement from conservatives. Our nuanced look at the Court's policymaking suggests rational bases for perceiving the Court's contemporary policymaking as conservative, moderate, and even liberal. We argue that subjective ideological disagreement-incongruence between one's ideological preferences and one's perception of the Court's ideological tenor-must be accounted for when explaining legitimacy. Analysis of a national survey shows that subjective ideological disagreement exhibits a potent, deleterious impact on legitimacy. Ideology exhibits sensible connections to legitimacy depending on how people perceive the Court's ideological tenor. Results from a survey experiment support our posited mechanism. Our work has implications for the public's view of the Court as a "political" institution. Adapted from the source document.

To what extent should Supreme Court justices be appointed on the basis of ideology and politics as opposed to qualifications and experience only? We examine how Americans' preferences regarding this question are influenced by their perceptions of the Court as politicized in how it goes about its work. From a "backlash" perspective, such perceptions should diminish preferences for a political appointment process, whereas a "political reinforcement" perspective suggests an enhancement effect. National survey data show that a large segment of the public perceives of the Court in political terms and prefers that justices be chosen on political and ideological bases. Empirical evidence refutes the backlash hypothesis and supports the political reinforcement hypothesis; the more individuals perceive the Court in politicized terms, the greater their preferences for a political appointment process. Those who view the Court as highly politicized do not differentiate the Court from the explicitly political branches and therefore prefer that justices be chosen on political and ideological grounds. The results have implications for the public's perceptions and expectations of the Court as a "political" institution. Adapted from the source document.

Political consumerism is the intentional buying or abstention from buying specific products for political, social, or ethical purposes. We develop and test hypotheses regarding the individual sources of political consumerism in the United States. Analysis of survey data shows that similar to voting, education, political interest, and citizen duty promote political consumerism. Akin to protest behavior, political consumerism is enhanced by political distrust and general discontent. In contrast to turnout, political consumerism significantly decreases with age. Given the extraelectoral and self-initiated nature of political consumerism, citizen initiative and a proclivity for individualized forms of activism are significant sources of political consumerism. Adapted from the source document.

Political consumerism is the intentional buying or abstention from buying specific products for political, social, or ethical purposes. We develop and test hypotheses regarding the individual sources of political consumerism in the United States. Analysis of survey data shows that similar to voting, education, political interest, and citizen duty promote political consumerism. Akin to protest behavior, political consumerism is enhanced by political distrust and general discontent. In contrast to turnout, political consumerism significantly decreases with age. Given the extraelectoral and self-initiated nature of political consumerism, citizen initiative and a proclivity for individualized forms of activism are significant sources of political consumerism.