Bonneau, Chris W., Jarrod, Kelly, Pronin, Kira, Redman, Shane and Zarit, Matt (2017) Supreme Court judgments based on reasons outside the law are unlikely to harm its legitimacy. USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog (13 Jan 2017). Website.
|
PDF
- Published Version
Download (148kB) | Preview |
Abstract
While almost all judgments from the Supreme Court are based on some kind of existing law, there are a small number which are not. Instead justices use public opinion, religious texts, and their own personal beliefs to justify their decisions. In new research, Chris Bonneau, Jarrod Kelly, Kira Pronin, Shane Redman and Matt Zarit examine whether such ‘extralegal’ decisions harm the Court’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public. They find that when moral or public opinion reasons are provided in addition to legal precedents, then public opinion about that decision’s legitimacy does not change. Members of the public only change their opinion on a decision’s legitimacy when they believe one specific reason is inappropriate and they disagree with the outcome.
| Item Type: | Online resource (Website) |
|---|---|
| Official URL: | http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/ |
| Additional Information: | © 2017 The Authors, USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog, The London School of Economics and Political Science © CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 |
| Divisions: | LSE |
| Subjects: | J Political Science > JA Political science (General) J Political Science > JK Political institutions (United States) |
| Date Deposited: | 10 Feb 2017 12:43 |
| Last Modified: | 14 Sep 2024 01:10 |
| URI: | http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/69356 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Download Statistics
Download Statistics