Evaluating the Effects of Multiple Opinion Rationales on Supreme Court Legitimacy
| Autor: | Jarrod T. Kelly, Kira Pronin, Matthew Zarit, Shane M. Redman, Chris W. Bonneau |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2016 |
| Předmět: |
Majority opinion
Law of the case Sociology and Political Science Concurring opinion 05 social sciences Original jurisdiction Court of equity 0506 political science Supreme court Dissenting opinion Law Political science 0502 economics and business 050602 political science & public administration 050207 economics Court of record |
| Zdroj: | American Politics Research. 45:335-365 |
| ISSN: | 1552-3373 1532-673X |
| DOI: | 10.1177/1532673x16667089 |
| Popis: | The literature on the U.S. Supreme Court has paid substantial attention to the perceived legitimacy of the Court’s decisions. However, much less attention has been paid to the perceived legitimacy of the reasons the Court provides for its opinions. We design two experiments to understand how the public perceives opinion content. Unlike prior studies, we take it as a given that the Court uses legal reasons in its decisions. This offers us a baseline by which to compare departures from these legal reasons. We find that extralegal reasons, when paired with legal reasons, do nothing to harm the legitimacy of the Court. Furthermore, we find that even with a lack of legal reasons, the use of extralegal reasons does not harm the legitimacy of the Court, even among those who find that these reasons are inappropriate for the Court to use. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|