To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Healthcare personnel with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were interviewed to describe activities and practices in and outside the workplace. Among 2,625 healthcare personnel, workplace-related factors that may increase infection risk were more common among nursing-home personnel than hospital personnel, whereas selected factors outside the workplace were more common among hospital personnel.
Chapter 5 examines the effect of disagreement with specific Supreme Court ruling on support for both narrowly and broadly targeted Court-curbing. The chapter presents results from a national panel survey with waves surrounding some of the most important rulings in the contemporary era, including 2012’s health care ruling (NFIB v. Sebelius, upholding the Affordable Care Act), 2013’s rulings on the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County) and same-sex marriage (Windsor), and 2015’s landmark ruling declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). The results demonstrate that citizens’ support for Court-curbing changes as a function of agreement and disagreement with salient rulings. The chapter also demonstrates that right-wing citizens are consistently more supportive of Court-curbing throughout the 2012–2016 period, suggesting that blockbuster liberal rulings during this period have had a substantial impact on mass perceptions of the Court’s ideological tenor. We also report the results from two original national survey experiments which show that the effect of policy disagreement is larger for narrow than broad Court-curbing.
Chapter 6 examines how partisan polarization reduces citizens’ willingness to defend the Supreme Court from curbing attacks. The chapter focuses on two national survey experiments which randomly assign respondents to polarized or unpolarized conditions in the context of a salient Supreme Court ruling. While disagreement with Court decisions always increases support for curbing the Court, the effect of disagreement is substantially larger in polarized relative to unpolarized conditions. The chapter demonstrates that the polarization effect is not due to mere partisan branding and that disagreement with specific decisions has a larger impact on support for narrow than broad curbing.
Chapter 2 develops a policy-based theory of public support for Court-curbing, which represents an alternative to process-based perspectives popular in the literature. The chapter distinguishes “broadly targeted Court-curbing,” or support for attacks on the institution’s powers and independence, from “narrowly targeted Court-curbing,” or support for attacks on the Court’s specific rulings. While disagreement with the general ideological direction of the Supreme Court strongly impacts support for broadly targeted Court-curbing, disagreement with specific rulings has a larger effect on narrowly targeted curbing. The theory also explains how and why partisan polarization reduces citizens’ willingness to defend the Court and discusses competing perspectives for how citizens’ level of political engagement moderates the effect of policy disagreement.
Chapter 4 presents several empirical tests of the effect of general policy disagreement on citizen support for broadly targeted Court-curbing, using national surveys from 2005, 2011, and 2012. The results indicate that general policy disagreement significantly increases support for broadly targeted Court-curbing with an effect size comparable to the impact of other key predictors, such as support for democratic values (rule of law, tolerance) and political engagement. While political engagement decreases support for Court-curbing, it does not moderate the effect of general policy disagreement.
Chapter 3 describes in detail the data sources and research designs used throughout the book, including observational data sources, experiments on national samples of American citizens, and panel surveys tracking the same people over time. It also summarizes aggregate public opinion on key variables through time, including approval, confidence, trust, procedural perceptions, and broadly targeted and narrowly targeted Court-curbing. The chapter concludes that the Court’s “reservoir of goodwill” within the American public is not as deep or wide as many scholars suggest.
Chapter 8 concludes with a summary and synthesis of the book’s findings. It discusses the book’s implications for theories of public support for courts, and situates the book within the broader literature on public opinion and political institutions. The chapter anticipates and responds to criticisms of the book’s theoretical and empirical sections, and explores broader implications for the Court’s independence and power within the American political system.
Chapter 1 sets the scholarly and popular context for explaining how citizens evaluate the United States Supreme Court. It conceptualizes the core outcome of interest throughout the book: public support for Court-curbing, or alterations to the Supreme Court’s powers, structures, and institutional arrangements. We compare this concept to judicial independence and judicial power, and we distinguish it from institutional legitimacy. Chapter 1 also makes important connections to the institutions literature, explaining how a politicized foundation to Court-curbing represents a constraint on judicial independence. We characterize core debates in the scholarly literature centering on “policy (or outcome) versus process.” Policy-based perspectives posit that citizen agreement or disagreement with the Court’s rulings or policy direction will influence support for Court-curbing. Process-based perspectives suggest that non-policy factors such as democratic values, perceptions that the Court is fair and impartial (as opposed to politicized), and knowledge and awareness (via a “positivity bias”) all serve to enhance institutional support for the Court.
Chapter 7 examines how disagreement with the general ideological direction of the Court, as well as disagreement with specific rulings, impacts citizens’ perceptions of the Court’s decision-making procedures. It argues that citizens use these perceptions to rationalize support for Court-curbing when they dislike the Court’s rulings or general policy direction. In observational and experimental data, the chapter finds a strong association between policy disagreement and perceptions that the Court is politicized and its decisions shaped by partisan and ideological interests. The chapter also finds that political engagement generally increases the impact of policy disagreement on procedural perceptions.
What motivates political actors with diverging interests to respect the Supreme Court's authority? A popular answer is that the public serves as the guardian of judicial independence by punishing elected officials who undermine the justices. Curbing the Court challenges this claim, presenting a new theory of how we perceive the Supreme Court. Bartels and Johnston argue that, contrary to conventional wisdom, citizens are not principled defenders of the judiciary. Instead, they seek to limit the Court's power when it suits their political aims, and this inclination is heightened during times of sharp partisan polarization. Backed by a wealth of observational and experimental data, Bartels and Johnston push the conceptual, theoretical, and empirical boundaries of the study of public opinion of the courts. By connecting citizens to the strategic behavior of elites, this book offers fresh insights into the vulnerability of judicial institutions in an increasingly contentious era of American politics.
We apply two methods to estimate the 21-cm bispectrum from data taken within the Epoch of Reionisation (EoR) project of the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA). Using data acquired with the Phase II compact array allows a direct bispectrum estimate to be undertaken on the multiple redundantly spaced triangles of antenna tiles, as well as an estimate based on data gridded to the uv-plane. The direct and gridded bispectrum estimators are applied to 21 h of high-band (167–197 MHz; z = 6.2–7.5) data from the 2016 and 2017 observing seasons. Analytic predictions for the bispectrum bias and variance for point-source foregrounds are derived. We compare the output of these approaches, the foreground contribution to the signal, and future prospects for measuring the bispectra with redundant and non-redundant arrays. We find that some triangle configurations yield bispectrum estimates that are consistent with the expected noise level after 10 h, while equilateral configurations are strongly foreground-dominated. Careful choice of triangle configurations may be made to reduce foreground bias that hinders power spectrum estimators, and the 21-cm bispectrum may be accessible in less time than the 21-cm power spectrum for some wave modes, with detections in hundreds of hours.