Book contents
- The Rights Paradox
- The Rights Paradox
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Table of Cases
- 1 Legitimacy and Minority Rights
- 2 The Group Antipathy Theory of Supreme Court Legitimacy
- 3 Under Siege
- 4 Opening the Floodgates
- 5 Experimental Tests of the Group Antipathy Model
- 6 How Citizens Use Groups to Evaluate Judicial Preferences
- 7 Group Antipathy and Strategic Behavior on the Supreme Court
- 8 Conclusion
- Appendix
- References
- Index
4 - Opening the Floodgates
Big Business, Citizens United, and Evaluations of the Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 March 2021
- The Rights Paradox
- The Rights Paradox
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Table of Cases
- 1 Legitimacy and Minority Rights
- 2 The Group Antipathy Theory of Supreme Court Legitimacy
- 3 Under Siege
- 4 Opening the Floodgates
- 5 Experimental Tests of the Group Antipathy Model
- 6 How Citizens Use Groups to Evaluate Judicial Preferences
- 7 Group Antipathy and Strategic Behavior on the Supreme Court
- 8 Conclusion
- Appendix
- References
- Index
Summary
The Constitution protects a diverse array of groups. The Framers viewed political and religious minorities as particularly worthy of safeguard, and later developments brought racial groups, women, and the poor into this fold. Yet, a separate strain in American political and jurisprudential thought has carved out a place for others, including those that inherently wield a measure of advantage. No less a constitutional thinker than James Madison emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of the wealthy. “The minority of the opulent,” Madison argued, must be protected from majority domination (quoted in Matthews 2005, 54).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Rights ParadoxHow Group Attitudes Shape US Supreme Court Legitimacy, pp. 51 - 65Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021