Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T10:46:45.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chief Justice versus the iconoclast: Popular constitutionalism and support for using “sociological gobbledygook” in legal decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Benjamin W. Woodson  and
Christopher M. Parker
Benjamin W. Woodson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Missouri - Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
Christopher M. Parker
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Rhode Island, South Kingstown, Rhode Island, USA
*
Benjamin W. Woodson, University of Missouri - Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA., Email: woodsonb@umkc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional wisdom assumes that the public wants judges that will simply interpret and apply the law as it is written. However, existing evidence shows a substantial portion of the American population supports the doctrine of popular constitutionalism. Using two experiments involving the use of social science in legal decisions, we show that popular constitutionalists evaluate the judiciary using a different set of criteria than legal traditionalists. For legal traditionalists, using social science in legal decisions is perceived as an undesirable nonlegal influence and reduces acceptance of a court decision. For popular constitutionalists, social science is perceived as objective evidence that can be used to understand the practical effects of a decision and increases acceptance. We conclude by discussing the need for more research on popular constitutionalists, as little is known about how this group evaluates the judiciary and interprets its actions.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 657 - 679
Copyright
© 2021 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

How to cite this article: Woodson, Benjamin W., Christopher M. Parker. 2021. “The Chief Justice versus the iconoclast: Popular constitutionalism and support for using “sociological gobbledygook” in legal decisions.” Law & Society Review 55(4): 657-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12578

References

REFERENCES

American Academy of Arts & Sciences. 2018. Perceptions of Science in America. Cambridge: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.Google Scholar
American Justice Partnership. 2008. Voter Opinion on the Election or Appointment of State Supreme Court Justices. Lansing, MI: Author.Google Scholar
Anderson, Seth. 2003. “Examining the Decline in Support for Merit Selection in the States.” Albany Law Review 67: 793–803.Google Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A., and Gangl, Amy. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media's Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology 27(4): 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L., and Johnston, Christopher D. 2020. Curbing the Court: Why the Public Constrains Judicial Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C. 2006. “Understanding Public Confidence in American Courts.” Journal of Politics 68(3): 697–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimenal Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20(3): 351-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W., Kelly, Jarrod T., Pronin, Kira, Redman, Shane M., and Zarit, Matthew. 2016. “Evaluating the Effects of Multiple Opinion Rationales on Supreme Court Legitimacy.” American Politics Research 45(3): 335-65.Google Scholar
Buhrmester, Michael, Kwang, Tracy, and Gosling, Samuel D. 2011. “Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casillas, Christopher J., Enns, Peter K., and Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2011. “How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 55(1): 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, Scott, Jewell, Ryan M., and Waggoner, Philip D. 2015. “Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology.” Research and Politics 2: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorf, Michael C. 1999. “Create Your Own Constitutional Theory.” California Law Review 87(3): 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Stephen M. 2011. American Politicians Confront the Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faigman, David L. 1989. “To Have and Have Not: Assessing the Value of Social Science to the Law as Science and Policy.” Emory Law Journal 38: 1005-95.Google Scholar
Farganis, Dion. 2012. “Do Reasons Matter? The Impact of Opinion Content on Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly 65(1): 206-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Barry. 2003. “Mediated Popular Constitutionalism.” Michigan Law Review 101(8): 2596–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyh, Charles Gardner. 2003. “Why Judicial Elections Stink.” Ohio State Law Journal 64: 43–79.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1989. “Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance.” Law & Society Review 23(3): 469-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1991. “Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Compliance with Supreme Court Decisions: A Question of Causality.” Law and Society Review 25(3): 631-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2012. Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A. 2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A. 2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law and Society Review 45(1): 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Spence, Lester Kenyatta. 2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly 58: 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Lodge, Milton, and Woodson, Benjamin. 2014. “Losing, But Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law and Society Review 48(4): 837-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golde, Kalvis. 2019. “Recent Polls Show Confidence in Supreme Court, with Caveats.” SCOTUSBlog. October 22, 2019. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/recent-polls-show-confidence-in-supreme-court-with-caveats/Google Scholar
Irvine, Krin, Hoffman, David A., and Wilkinson-Ryan, Tess. 2018. “Law and Psychology Grows Up, Goes Online, and Replicates.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 15(2): 320-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justice at Stake Campaign. 2001. “2001 National Bipartisan Survey”. http://www.justiceatstake.org/media/cms/JASNationalSurveyResults_6F537F99272D4.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Ryan, Clifford, Scott, Burleigh, Tyler, Waggoner, Philip D., Jewell, Ryan, and Winter, Nicholas J.G. 2020. “The Shape of and Solutions to the MTurk Quality Crisis.” Political Science Research and Methods. 8: 614-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Larry D. 2004. “Popular Constitutionalism, Circa 2004.” California Law Review 92(4): 959–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Larry D., and Tribe, Lawrence H. 2001. “The Supreme Court, 2000 Term.” Harvard Law Review 115(1): 1–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruzel, John. 2020. “Dozens of Legal Experts Throw Weight Behind Supreme Court Term Limit Bill.” The Hill. October 23, 2020. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/522447-dozens-of-legal-experts-throw-weight-behind-supreme-court-term-limitGoogle Scholar
Lederman, Josh. 2019. “Inside Pete Buttigieg's Plan to Overhaul the Supreme Court.” NBC News. June 3, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/inside-pete-buttigieg-s-plan-overhaul-supreme-court-n1012491Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meitl, Michele Bisaccia. 2020. “Evidence-Based Opinions? How the Top Jurists in the United States Differ in their Use of Social Science in Criminal Procedure Decisions.” The Social Science Journal. in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1806582Google Scholar
Meitl, Michele Bisaccia, Piquero, Nicole Leeper, and Piquero, Alex. 2020. “The Gradual Warm-Up: The United States Supreme Court's Reliance on Social Science Research in Constitutional Criminal Law and Procedure Opinions, 2001-2015.” Deviant Behavior 41(12): 1575-84.Google Scholar
Paolacci, Gabriele, Chandler, Jesse, and Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G. 2010. “Running Experiments on Mechanical Turk.” Judgment and Decision-Making. 5(5): 411-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Christopher M., and Woodson, Benjamin. 2020. “Normative Preferences and Response to Dissension on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 41(3): 220-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1998. “Against Constitutional Theory.” New York University Law Review 73(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1999. The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2003a. Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2003b. Economic Analysis of the Law. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
Pozen, David E. 2010. “Judicial Elections as Popular Constitutionalism.” Columbia Law Review 110(8): 2047–134.Google Scholar
Redding, Richard E., and Dickon Reppucci, N. 1999. “Effects of Lawyers' Socio-Political on their Judgments of Social Science in Legal Decision-Making.” Law and Human Behavior 23(1): 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheb, John M. II, and Lyons, William. 2000. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly 81(4): 928-40.Google Scholar
Scheb, John M. II, and Lyons, William. 2001. “Judicial Behavior and Public Opinion: Popular Expectations Regarding the Factors That Influence Supreme Court Decisions.” Political Behavior 23(2): 181-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology 57: 375–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodson, Benjamin. 2015. “Politicization and the Two Modes of Evaluating Judicial Decisions.” Journal of Law and Courts 3(2): 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodson, Benjamin. 2018. “The Dynamics of Legitimacy Change for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 39: 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodson, Benjamin. 2019. “The Causes of the Legitimacy-Conferring and Republican Schoolmaster Capabilities of Courts.” Journal of Law and Courts 7(2): 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CASES CITED

Atkins v Virginia. 2002. 536 U.S. 304.Google Scholar
Brown v Board of Education. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.Google Scholar
Elkins v United States. 1960. 364 U.S. 206.Google Scholar
Mapp v Ohio. 1961. 367 U.S. 643.Google Scholar
Missouri v Jenkins. 1995. 515 U.S. 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller v Oregon. 1908. 208 U.S. 412.Google Scholar
NFIB v Sebelius. 2012. 567 U.S. 519.Google Scholar
Roper v Simmons. 2005. 543 U.S. 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Woodson and Parker supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 33 KB