No home court advantage: The trump impeachment trial and attitudes toward the U.S. Supreme Court

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Miles T. Armaly, A. Enders
{"title":"No home court advantage: The trump impeachment trial and attitudes toward the U.S. Supreme Court","authors":"Miles T. Armaly, A. Enders","doi":"10.1177/20531680211053067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the U.S. Supreme Court goes to great lengths to avoid the “political thicket,” it is sometimes unwittingly pulled in. We employ several experimental treatments—each of which is composed of real behaviors that took place during the Trump impeachment trial—to understand the impact of the trial on attitudes about the Court. We find that Chief Justice Roberts’ presence and behaviors during the trial failed to legitimize the proceeding and may have even harmed views of the Court. Treatments involving Roberts’ actions decreased willingness to accept Court decisions and, in some cases, negatively impacted perceived legitimacy. We also find that criticisms of the Chief Justice by Senators decreased decision acceptance. These findings clarify both the bounds of the institution’s legitimizing power and the tenuous nature of public support in times of greater Court politicization by outside actors.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211053067","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: 1

Abstract

Although the U.S. Supreme Court goes to great lengths to avoid the “political thicket,” it is sometimes unwittingly pulled in. We employ several experimental treatments—each of which is composed of real behaviors that took place during the Trump impeachment trial—to understand the impact of the trial on attitudes about the Court. We find that Chief Justice Roberts’ presence and behaviors during the trial failed to legitimize the proceeding and may have even harmed views of the Court. Treatments involving Roberts’ actions decreased willingness to accept Court decisions and, in some cases, negatively impacted perceived legitimacy. We also find that criticisms of the Chief Justice by Senators decreased decision acceptance. These findings clarify both the bounds of the institution’s legitimizing power and the tenuous nature of public support in times of greater Court politicization by outside actors.
没有主场优势:特朗普弹劾案审判和对美国最高法院的态度
尽管美国最高法院竭尽全力避免“政治丛林”,但有时它会在不知不觉中被卷入其中。我们采用了几种实验性处理方法——每一种方法都由特朗普弹劾审判期间发生的真实行为组成——来了解审判对对法院态度的影响。我们认为,首席大法官罗伯茨在审判期间的出席和行为未能使诉讼程序合法化,甚至可能损害法院的看法。涉及罗伯茨行为的治疗降低了接受法院判决的意愿,在某些情况下,对人们认为的合法性产生了负面影响。我们还发现,参议员对首席大法官的批评降低了判决的接受度。这些发现既阐明了法院合法化权力的界限,也阐明了在法院被外部行为者更大程度政治化的情况下,公众支持的脆弱性质。
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
Research and Politics
Research and Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research & Politics aims to advance systematic peer-reviewed research in political science and related fields through the open access publication of the very best cutting-edge research and policy analysis. The journal provides a venue for scholars to communicate rapidly and succinctly important new insights to the broadest possible audience while maintaining the highest standards of quality control.
×
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