Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T22:58:21.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

William Mishler  and
Reginald S. Sheehan
William Mishler
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Reginald S. Sheehan
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although normative questions about the role of the Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution have long excited controversy in democratic theory, empirical questions about how far the Court acts contrary to majoritarian opinion have received less attention. Time series analyses for the period 1956–89 indicate the existence of a reciprocal and positive relationship between long-term trends in aggregate public opinion and the Court's collective decisions. The Court's ideological composition changes in response to previous shifts in the partisan and ideological orientation of the president and Congress. The Court also responds to public opinion at the margins even in the absence of membership change. Since 1981, the relationship has vanished or turned negative in direction. The Court's ideological balance has been upset by an unbroken string of conservative-to-moderate appointments, thereby undermining the dynamics that promote judicial responsiveness and raising questions about the majoritarianism of the contemporary and future Court.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 87 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1993

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.)

References

Adamany, David W., and Grossman, Joel B.. 1983. “Support for the Supreme Court as a National Policymaker.” Law and Policy Quarterly 5:405–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, Burton M., and Sloope, Terry. 1986. “The ‘New’ Hugo Black and the Warren Court. Polity 18:621–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker v. Carr. 1962. 369 U.S. 186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnum, David G. 1985. “The Supreme Court and Public Opinion: Judicial Decisionmaking in the Post New Deal Period.” Journal of Politics 47:652–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1988. “Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82:905–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1992. “Membership Change and Collective Voting in the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 54:3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. 1962. The Least Dangerous Branch. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.Google Scholar
Blalock, Hubert M. Jr., 1961. Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Box, George E., and Jenkins, Gwilyn M.. 1976. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Box, George E., and Tiao, Gregory C.. 1975. “Intervention Analysis with Applications to Economic and Environmental Problems.” Journal of American Statistical Association 70:70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1986. “Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Public Confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 80:1209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1987. “Public Opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court: FDR's Court Packing Plan.” American Political Science Review 81:1139–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1991. “Courts and Public Opinion.” In The American Courts, ed. Gates, John B. and Johnson, Charles A.. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Canon, Bradley, and Ulmer, S. Sydney. 1976. “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections: A Dissent.” American Political Science Review 70:1215–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, Jonathan D. 1976. “The Supreme Court and National Policymaking.” American Political Science Review 70:5066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1957. “Decisionmaking in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policymaker.” Journal of Public Law 6:279–95.Google Scholar
Dolbeare, Kenneth M. 1967. “The Public Views the Supreme Court.” In Law, Politics, and the Federal Courts, ed. Jacob, Herbert. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Freeman, John R. 1983. “Granger Causality and Time Series Analysis of Political Relationships.” American Journal of Political Science 27:327–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funston, Richard. 1975. “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections.” American Political Science Review 69:795–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessel, John H. 1966. “Public Perceptions of the Supreme Court.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 10:167–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koramatsu v. The United States. 1944. 323 U.S. 214.Google Scholar
Lee v. Weisman. 1992. 120 L.Ed. 2d 467.Google Scholar
Lehne, Richard, and Reynolds, John. 1978. “The Impact of Judicial Activism on Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 22:896–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, Michael W. 1992. “The Countermajoritarian Difficulty: Tracking Public Mood in the Supreme Court.” University of South Carolina. Typescript.Google Scholar
Marshall, Thomas. 1989. Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Mishler, William and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1991. The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution?: The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Tampa, Fl.Google Scholar
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Lauyhlin Steel Company. 1937. 301 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Charles W. Jr., 1990. Time Series Analysis: Regression Techniques. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, no. 07-069. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77:175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. 1992. 120 L.Ed. 2d 674.Google Scholar
Rohde, David, and Spaeth, Harold. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can the Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Morris. 1968. The Logic of Survey Analysis. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1970. The Constitutional Polity. Boston: Boston University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. “Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962–1981.” American Political Science Review 78:891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1985. “Measuring Change on the Supreme Court: Examining Alternative Models.” American Journal of Political Science 29:461–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert. 1989. “Ideological Values and Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83:557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William, and Songer, Donald R.. 1992. “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 86:464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1991. United States Supreme Court Data Base, 1953–1989 Terms Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1992. Public Opinion in America: Mode, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Joseph, and Murphy, Walter F.. 1981. “Patterns of Public Support for the Supreme Court: A Panel Study.” Journal of Politics 43:24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. 1937. 300 U.S. 379.Google Scholar
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer. 1952. 343 U.S. 579.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.