Public Opinion Judicial Behavior and Legitimacy Paper

User Generated

HFRE_ERZBIRQ_YRTNY_2643

Humanities

Description

There must BE NO PLAGIARISM OR GRAMMATICAL ERRORS

MLA format with size 12 font Time roman double spaced spaced

READ THE ARTICLE AT LEAST TWICE TIMES TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS IN THE ARTICLE BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT READING

The article is based on the week lecture,so apply this week lecture slides with the article onto the essay. Your are to make AN ARGUMENT BASED ON APPLYING THIS WEEK LECTURE TO THE ARTICLE AND WRITE HOW THE SUPREME COURT CASE TIES TO THE LECTURES CONCEPTS OF THE WEEK. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE RESPONDING CRITICALLY TO THIS WEEK READING AND LECTURE GIVEN THIS WEEK!!

THE ESSAY MUST BE THREE PAGE MAXIMUM, TIME ROMAN AND IT IS DOUBLE SPACED .

The Supreme Court case is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). READ THE SUPREME COURT CASE CAREFULLY AND THINK WHAT OTHER POSSIBLE ISSUES IS THIS CASE NOT ADDRESSING. WHAT IS IT LEAVING OUT?

Please make sure that you are making an ARGUMENT FOR THE ESSAY, and must have a thesis!! IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS ARGUMENT ARE YOU PRESENTING FOR THE CASE! YOU ARE RESPONDING TO THIS WEEK READING USING BY MAKING AN ARGUMENT WITH THE USING THE WEEK LECTURE TOPIC!! THE WEEK TOPIC CONFUSE MAINLY ON PUBLIC OPINION AND HOW OR NOT IT CAN AFFECT SUPREME COURT DECISION,

Directions: Every week we will cover a substantive topic and, at the end of the week,discuss a related Supreme Court case. Your response papers should make an argument about how well the theories and ideas discussed on Monday and Wednesday relate to, explain, or inform our understanding of that case.Good response papers do more than summarize the assigned readings. You should identify the major question(s) of the week, and ANALYZE the STRENGTHENS and WEAKNESSES of theoretical approaches to that question, in light of how well they APPLY TO AN ACTUAL DECISION. Some questions to think about when starting to write: Do that week’s readings and lecture HELP make SENSE of WHY the Court did what it did? Why or why not? Do they leave important questions unanswered? Are concepts and ideas from earlier weeks also useful for understanding the case.

i WILL LINK THE SUPREME COURT CASE ARTICLE AND UPLOAD THE LECTURE SLIDES. PLEASE LOOK THROUGH THE LECTURE SLIDES CAREFULLY!!

https://ul451.gsu.edu/courts.gov/c/editedUS/505/50...( the case )


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Public Opinion Strayhorn Public Opinion, Judicial Behavior, and Legitimacy Josh Strayhorn University of Colorado Boulder, CO joshua.strayhorn@colorado.edu Apr. 15, 2019 Public Opinion Strayhorn Today: legitimacy and public opinion Public Opinion Strayhorn Conditions for court effectiveness Several factors, other actors, issue area Important actor: the public We’ll consider Sup. Ct.’s relationship with public Public Opinion Strayhorn Two parts Today: is the Court responsive to public opinion? Next time: can the Court change public opinion? Big question: can Court lead, or is Court constrained by public? Public Opinion Strayhorn Recall, Court often needs some public support E.g. Vanberg’s argument—backlash Legal mobilization often works to support minority groups Must courts please majorities? This may undermine some of our arguments Public Opinion Strayhorn For example: one argument Premise: Court requires high legitimacy for power Low specific support may gradually erode that Therefore, Court might be reluctant to make unpopular decisions Public Opinion Strayhorn Court hasn’t always ducked major issues Brown was unpopular, Bush v. Gore risked alienating half the country Struck down death penalty, expanded rights of criminals That said, some evidence of responsiveness Overall liberalism/conservatism trends with public mood Public Opinion Strayhorn Flemming and Wood (1997): indirect and direct effects of public Indirect: via appointment/replacement E.g.: country more conservative, they elect Repubs, Court changes Simple enough Public Opinion Strayhorn But also evidence of direct effects Direct: Court gets more liberal as public does, controlling for membership Public attitudes have some influence However, Flemming and Wood do not really explore why Public Opinion Strayhorn Does this mean Court fears losing support? Not necessarily Giles et al (2008) argue otherwise Theory: two reasons why Court may follow public opinion 1) Justices deliberately avoid irritating public 2) Justices’ opinions evolve like the public’s Public Opinion Strayhorn Idea: if strategic, should see Court more responsive in more salient cases E.g. lots of media coverage But really no difference Court probably just responding to events A dramatic example, 9/11: opinions about national security move Happens to Court too Public Opinion Strayhorn No evidence that Court limits itself on specific support grounds So justices may be responsive to minority movements No guarantees May shift views as movements become more accepted/popular Public Opinion Strayhorn Consider gay rights Court initially pretty skeptical E.g. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), upholding states’ rights to criminalize sodomy As social acceptance increases, Court changes Public Opinion Strayhorn Synergy between legal mobilization and broader social efforts Normalizing issues/groups can help Judges are members of society, after all Public Opinion Strayhorn How else might judges be constrained? We’ve considered specific, what about diffuse? Public Opinion Strayhorn How else might judges be constrained? We’ve considered specific, what about diffuse? Protecting legitimacy Public Opinion Strayhorn Another argument Premise: Court requires high legitimacy for power Decisions that ignore precedent or are overly ‘political’ may harm Therefore, Court should follow previous precedent Avoid looking bad Public Opinion Strayhorn This would also limit policy impact Judiciary slow and unresponsive But, not much evidence of this Public Opinion Strayhorn Segal and Spaeth article looks at this Idea: Court supposed to follow precedent, so justices should do so even if they disagree Look at dissenters in early cases Don’t tend to change in later cases Or behave any differently at all Public Opinion Strayhorn Kind of clever A little narrow, limited to issues that come up a lot But shows that Court not that worried about precedent Public Opinion Strayhorn Some more recent research takes a more sophisticated approach Bailey and Maltzman (2008) find some evidence of precedent affecting justices’ positions Modest in size, and varies a lot from justice to justice Public Opinion Strayhorn Most decisions reflect preferences of Court majority Court does what it thinks appropriate, regardless of precedent Protects its legitimacy by other means Ritual, legalism, etc. Public Opinion Strayhorn This is grounds for criticism, certainly Is Court making it up as they go along? But one positive side-effect: Court more responsive to new ideas Possible for a ‘hopeless’ cause to break through Need to persuade, or build social momentum Public Opinion Strayhorn It’s likely this requires high baseline legitimacy U.S. Supreme Court is among the most legitimate in the world (Gibson, Caldeira, Baird 1998) A few others (Germany, Netherlands, etc.) in its league, but not many Public Opinion Strayhorn Where legitimacy is low, courts much more strategic Constrained in both ways Specific and diffuse Public Opinion Strayhorn Cultural factors may also play a role: Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. (Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835) Perhaps somewhat unique to U.S. Other courts may not feel as free to insert themselves into certain public debates Public Opinion Strayhorn Next: ability of the Court to persuade the public Public Opinion Strayhorn Judicial Issue Leadership Josh Strayhorn University of Colorado Boulder, CO joshua.strayhorn@colorado.edu Apr. 17, 2019 Public Opinion Strayhorn Today: ability of Court to sway public opinion Reminder: be sure to get started on your case memo Public Opinion Strayhorn Last time: public opinion → Court Connections b/w public mood and Court behavior But no evidence Court is strategic (in this way) Deciding cases differently due to public Public Opinion Strayhorn Raises question: can the Court persuade? Court very legitimate Court may legitimize winning side Resulting in greater public acceptance Public Opinion Strayhorn Obstacles too Some issues are polarizing Public not attentive May view Court as political Public Opinion Strayhorn Despite that, Court seems to play this role Has been called “republican schoolmaster” Educate about issues, workings of constitution Public Opinion Strayhorn Relates to broad question Can Court cause social change? Maybe: rulings can sometimes change public mindset (with some caveats) Another path for influence Public Opinion Strayhorn Gibson and Caldeira (2011) We talked last time about Court rejecting precedent They ask: does realism about Court hurt its legitimacy Is diffuse support weaker among people who know how it really works? Just the opposite, actually Public Opinion Strayhorn Survey with questions about Court E.g. do people think justices’ personal views matter Those who perceive Court as less political are less supportive And thus vice versa—more realistic view of Court = more support Public Opinion Strayhorn Key: more support if people believe justices are different from politicians Public understands that preferences matter But believes justices are trying their best Can be ideological but still principled Public Opinion Strayhorn Research on Congress (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 1995) is a useful contrast Public gets very upset if they perceive politicians as benefiting personally Both direct quid pro quo, or ‘say anything to get elected’ Justices do not seek reelection, do not take contributions Public more friendly to that Aside: some evidence elected state courts face problems, but very mixed Public Opinion Strayhorn Knowledge of the Court is generally associated with higher diffuse support James Gibson calls this ‘positivity theory’ Knowing the Court exposes you to legitimizing symbols (Gibson et al. 2014) Some recent work has shown that ideological disagreement can chip away at diffuse, but these effects are weak (Bartels and Johnston 2013) Christensen and Glick (2015) show that people who 1) believe the Court is ideologically distant from selves and 2) thought Roberts acted strategically in Sebelius were more likely to drop their diffuse support I.e. people who viewed Roberts’ vote as a cynical and unprincipled action Public Opinion Strayhorn Public will generally give Court a hearing Earlier paper (Gibson, Caldeira, Spence 2003) showed that Democrats who knew more about Court were more supportive of Bush v. Gore Halo effect Court has some subtle power Can nudge public thinking on issues In a way that legislative victories might not Public Opinion Strayhorn There has been some research on this effect Franklin and Kosaki (1989) look at abortion cases Roe v. Wade has significant impact on public opinion Very different among those who have heard of Roe and those who haven’t, suggesting Court is responsible However, this effect is complex Court does not simply increase support Public Opinion Strayhorn Compare two facets of opinion Opinion about fully discretionary abortion, and opinion about abortion to preserve health of mother Discretionary very polarizing, even before Court acts Roe effect: polarizes it further Supporters support more strongly, opponents more opposed Public Opinion Strayhorn Abortions for health: not very polarizing Some support even among groups opposed to abortion Here, Court’s decision raises support overall Public Opinion Strayhorn Interpretation: Court limited if public already has strong opinions And can just entrench those further But can lead on less polarizing issues If public isn’t sure, Court can shape views Public Opinion Strayhorn This effect is strong if the public pays attention Hoekstra (2000): public opinion in cities cases originate from Lots of local news coverage, and so forth These can be surprisingly big moments in local lore Court’s decision strongly alters public opinion Still see polarization effect here too Public Opinion Strayhorn Sadly, public not that attentive Most Court opinions go unnoticed Those that are noticed, likely on already-polarized issues E.g. Affordable Care Act case A limitation Public Opinion Strayhorn Research looking for strong, across the board issue effects (e.g. Murphy and Tanenhaus 1968) hasn’t worked For exactly this reason Public needs to be watching But they aren’t, at least often enough Public Opinion Strayhorn Barclay and Silbey chapter argues for more subtle mechanisms Interpersonal discussion can slowly change things Court decisions are resources in issue debates Rights declarations can be resources Just as for litigants Public Opinion Strayhorn Slow process: some Court junkies pay attention Views gradually diffuse Hard to pick up evidence, but shouldn’t discount Court won’t have broad reach, but some Public Opinion Strayhorn Public opinion connection has been studied cross-nationally Gibson, Caldeira, Baird (1998) look at how courts build legitimacy Survey results in 18 countries Idea: specific support → attentiveness → diffuse support People who watch tend to like courts First spark is based on agreeing with court Public Opinion Strayhorn They speculate that high courts can build legitimacy by building specific support among many smaller groups Rather than pandering to majority Give small victories to lots of smaller groups Hasn’t been tested, but interesting Might fit U.S. case to some degree Public Opinion Strayhorn Controversial decisions not necessarily harmful to legitimacy In U.S., more awareness of Court leads to more support Legitimacy robust, and a useful resource Court decisions also have subtle effects on public opinion Under right circumstances, can lead on issues But requires attracting public eye Public Opinion Strayhorn Next: Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Please find the attached document, feel free to reach out in case you have any question. Cheers..

Insert surname 1

Student’s name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
The courts and Public opinion
There has been a debate on if a court is responsive to public opinion considering that many
people feel that the views of the majority should be catered. Although many people may think
that there is some form of responsiveness to public preference under certain conditions, the court
acts independently. Such a relationship between the court and public can only be traced back
during the Warren Court era where there was a correlation between liberal outputs and liberal
mood. Therefore, the court is not responsive to public opinion, but it can change public opinion.
From the case, there is no meaningful relationship between court ruling or outputs and public
opinion.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ruled majorly against the Pennsylvania
Abortion Control Act of 1982. It was a clear example that pub...


Anonymous
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags