Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory

IF 5 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
James L. Gibson
{"title":"Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory","authors":"James L. Gibson","doi":"10.1111/ajps.12834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Extant research has established that displeasure with a Supreme Court ruling typically has negligible consequences for institutional support, largely because, as legitimacy theory's positivity bias explains, judicial decisions are invariably delivered with the accoutrements of legitimizing symbols. The Court's ruling in <i>Dobbs</i>, abrogating a federal constitutional right to abortion services, may challenge legitimacy theory because displeasure with the ruling seems so widespread and intense. This research aims to determine whether the ruling lessened the Court's legitimacy. The general conclusion is that <i>Dobbs</i> produced a sizeable dent in institutional support, perhaps to an unprecedented degree, in part because abortion attitudes for many are infused with moral content and in part owing to the Court's substantial tilt to the right since 2020. Indeed, the Court's legitimacy may be at greater risk today than at any time since Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1930s attack on the institution.</p>","PeriodicalId":48447,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Political Science","volume":"68 3","pages":"1041-1056"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12834","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12834","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Extant research has established that displeasure with a Supreme Court ruling typically has negligible consequences for institutional support, largely because, as legitimacy theory's positivity bias explains, judicial decisions are invariably delivered with the accoutrements of legitimizing symbols. The Court's ruling in Dobbs, abrogating a federal constitutional right to abortion services, may challenge legitimacy theory because displeasure with the ruling seems so widespread and intense. This research aims to determine whether the ruling lessened the Court's legitimacy. The general conclusion is that Dobbs produced a sizeable dent in institutional support, perhaps to an unprecedented degree, in part because abortion attitudes for many are infused with moral content and in part owing to the Court's substantial tilt to the right since 2020. Indeed, the Court's legitimacy may be at greater risk today than at any time since Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1930s attack on the institution.

Abstract Image

失去合法性:多布斯案的裁决对传统合法性理论的挑战
现有研究已经证实,对最高法院裁决的不满通常对机构支持的影响微乎其微,这主要是因为,正如合法性理论的积极性偏差所解释的那样,司法裁决总是以合法化象征的附属品来传达。法院在多布斯案中的裁决废除了联邦宪法赋予堕胎服务的权利,这可能会挑战合法性理论,因为对该裁决的不满似乎如此普遍和强烈。本研究旨在确定该裁决是否削弱了法院的合法性。总的结论是,多布斯案对制度支持造成了相当大的影响,可能达到了前所未有的程度,部分原因是许多人对堕胎的态度充满了道德内容,部分原因是法院自 2020 年以来大幅向右倾斜。事实上,自 20 世纪 30 年代富兰克林-罗斯福(Franklin D. Roosevelt)抨击法院以来,法院的合法性面临的风险可能比任何时候都要大。
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
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) publishes research in all major areas of political science including American politics, public policy, international relations, comparative politics, political methodology, and political theory. Founded in 1956, the AJPS publishes articles that make outstanding contributions to scholarly knowledge about notable theoretical concerns, puzzles or controversies in any subfield of political science.
×
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