IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v80y1986i04p1209-1226_18.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Caldeira, Gregory A.

Abstract

Systematic study of changes in support for the U.S. Supreme Court across time has not been undertaken. Armed with a time series of observations from 1966 through 1984, I provide a description of the ebb and flow of public esteem for the Court. Then I outline and test several plausible propositions about the dynamics of support. Statistical analyses compel the conclusion that apart from a relatively constant core of support, increases in judicial activism, inflation, and solicitude for the rights of the accused decreased confidence in the Court; the events surrounding Watergate and increases in presidential popularity and the public salience of the Court brought about increased popular esteem for the high bench. Previous scholars, based on cross-sections of individuals, have emphasized the public's ignorance of and disinterest in the Supreme Court and judicial policy making. The responsiveness of public support for the Court in the aggregate to political events and shifts in the behavior of the justices stands in stark contrast to the conventional image of United States citizenry as singularly out of touch with and unmoved by the Supreme Court.

Suggested Citation

  • Caldeira, Gregory A., 1986. "Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1209-1226, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:80:y:1986:i:04:p:1209-1226_18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400185077/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bonica, Adam & Sen, Maya, 2015. "The Politics of Selecting the Bench from the Bar: The Legal Profession and Partisan Incentives to Politicize the Judiciary," Working Paper Series rwp15-001, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Katerina Linos & Kimberly Twist, 2016. "The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 223-254.
    3. Gutmann, Jerg & Sarel, Roee & Voigt, Stefan, 2022. "Measuring Constitutional Loyalty: Evidence from the Covid-19 Pandemic," ILE Working Paper Series 55, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    4. John Hagan & Sanja Kutnjak Ivković, 2006. "War Crimes, Democracy, and the Rule of Law in Belgrade, the Former Yugoslavia, and Beyond," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 605(1), pages 129-151, May.
    5. Jonas Tallberg & Soetkin Verhaegen, 2020. "The Legitimacy of International Institutions among Rising and Established Powers," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(S3), pages 115-126, October.
    6. repec:spa:wpaper:2014wpecon7 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Llanos, Mariana & Tibi Weber, Cordula, 2021. "High courts and social media in Latin America," GIGA Working Papers 326, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    8. Tom S. Clark, 2009. "The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 971-989, October.
    9. Staton, Jeffrey K., 2004. "When Judges Go Public: The Selective Promotion of Case Results on the Mexican Supreme Court," University of California at San Diego, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies qt4jq0f4d4, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, UC San Diego.
    10. repec:gig:joupla:v:2:y:2010:i:3:p:99-128 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Ganghof, Steffen & Manow, Philip, 2005. "Mechanismen der Politik: Strategische Interaktion im deutschen Regierungssystem," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 54, number 54.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:80:y:1986:i:04:p:1209-1226_18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.