2016Public Opinion QuarterlyRequires access

Change in Institutional Support for the US Supreme Court

James L. Gibson, Michael J. Nelson

Open publisher page 66 citations

Abstract

Political pundits and scholars alike have recently noticed that public judgments of how well the US Supreme Court is doing its job have plummeted. Yet, the meaning of this drop for the larger legitimacy of the Court is not as clear as the poll data themselves. Some believe that dissatisfaction with the Court’s rulings threatens the institution’s legitimacy. Conventional legitimacy theory, on the other hand, posits a “reservoir of goodwill” through which the translation of dissatisfaction into lowered legitimacy is blocked. Positivity theory, with its focus on the legitimizing role of the symbols of judicial authority, provides at least a partial explanation of how legitimacy is maintained in the face of rising disappointment in the Court’s rulings. Here, we focus specifically on the relationship between specific and diffuse support and the role judicial symbols play in undermining that connection, concluding that the Court’s legitimacy is more secure than many imagine.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Political pundits and scholars alike have recently noticed that public judgments of how well the US Supreme Court is doing its job have plummeted. Yet, the meaning of this drop for the larger legitimacy of the Court is not as clear as the poll data themselves. Some believe that dissatisfaction with the Court’s rulings threatens the institution’s legitimacy. Conventional legitimacy theory, on the other hand, posits a “reservoir of goodwill” through which the translation of dissatisfaction into lowered legitimacy is blocked. Positivity theory, with its focus on the legitimizing role of the symbols of judicial authority, provides at least a partial explanation of how legitimacy is maintained in the face of rising disappointment in the Court’s rulings. Here, we focus specifically on the relationship between specific and diffuse support and the role judicial symbols play in undermining that connection, concluding that the Court’s legitimacy is more secure than many imagine.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 66 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Political pundits and scholars alike have recently noticed that public judgments of how well the US Supreme Court is doing its job have plummeted. Yet, the meaning of this drop for the larger legitimacy of the Court is not as clear as the poll data themselves. Some believe that dissatisfaction with the Court’s rulings threatens the institution’s legitimacy. Conventional legitimacy theory, on the other hand, posits a “reservoir of goodwill” through which the translation of dissatisfaction into lowered legitimacy is blocked. Positivity theory, with its focus on the legitimizing role of the symbols of judicial authority, provides at least a partial explanation of how legitimacy is maintained in the face of rising disappointment in the Court’s rulings. Here, we focus specifically on the relationship between specific and diffuse support and the role judicial symbols play in undermining that connection, concluding that the Court’s legitimacy is more secure than many imagine.

Key concepts: Legitimacy, Supreme court, Law, Political science, Institution, Politics, Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Change in Institutional Support for the US Supreme Court — Research Paper | ScholarLens