A Shadow’s Influence? How the Shadow Docket Influences Public Opinion

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
EmiLee Smart
{"title":"A Shadow’s Influence? How the Shadow Docket Influences Public Opinion","authors":"EmiLee Smart","doi":"10.1177/1532673x231220645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Does increased use of the shadow docket influence public opinion of the Supreme Court? In recent years, the shadow docket of the Supreme Court has been used with increased frequency to make important decisions. The little research done previously on this docket has led to speculation that the shadow docket creates potential problems with perceptions of legitimacy for the Court. I theorize that procedures matter in changing public opinion of an institution when the procedures are nontransparent, stray from expected norms, and are thus perceived as politically unfair. I administered a survey experiment and find evidence to suggest that use of the shadow docket procedure does lead to less support for decisions as well as an increased support for measures of broad court curbing. The results have important implications for approval of the Court as well as the role of the Court in a transparent democracy.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Politics Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x231220645","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Does increased use of the shadow docket influence public opinion of the Supreme Court? In recent years, the shadow docket of the Supreme Court has been used with increased frequency to make important decisions. The little research done previously on this docket has led to speculation that the shadow docket creates potential problems with perceptions of legitimacy for the Court. I theorize that procedures matter in changing public opinion of an institution when the procedures are nontransparent, stray from expected norms, and are thus perceived as politically unfair. I administered a survey experiment and find evidence to suggest that use of the shadow docket procedure does lead to less support for decisions as well as an increased support for measures of broad court curbing. The results have important implications for approval of the Court as well as the role of the Court in a transparent democracy.
影子的影响?影子备审案件如何影响舆论
越来越多地使用“影子摘要”是否会影响最高法院的公众舆论?近年来,最高法院越来越频繁地使用影子摘要来做出重要决定。先前对这一摘要所做的少量研究导致人们猜测,影子摘要会对法院的合法性产生潜在的问题。我的理论是,当程序不透明、偏离预期规范、因而被认为在政治上不公平时,程序在改变公众对一个机构的看法方面很重要。我进行了一项调查实验,并找到证据表明,使用影子摘要程序确实导致对决定的支持减少,同时对广泛的法院限制措施的支持增加。其结果对法院的核准以及法院在透明民主中的作用具有重要影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Politics Research
American Politics Research POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
66
期刊介绍: The purpose of Amercian Politics Research is to promote and disseminate high-quality research in all areas of American politics, including local, state, and national. American Politics Research will publish significant studies concerning American political behavior, political parties, public opinion, legislative behavior, courts and the legal process, executive and administrative politics, public policy, and all other topics appropriate to our understanding of American government and politics. Manuscripts from all social science disciplines are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信