Wednesday, February 03, 2010

How Public Opinion Influences Judicial Decision Making

By Mike Dorf

As I noted last week, I recently attended a conference on The Judiciary and the Popular Will.  In my earlier post on the conference, I previewed my paper.  Here I'll say a little bit about some of the other papers.

The presenters included a fair number of political scientists and poli-sci-oriented law profs.  Both groups were interested in measuring the size of the effect of public opinion on Supreme Court decision making and the mechanism by which it is transmitted.  Supporting data will come eventually in the published papers, but a preliminary observation is in order: I was surprised by the degree to which the number crunchers found evidence of a direct effect of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions.  I had taken for granted that the chief mechanism by which public opinion influences the Court is judicial appointments: Presidents select and Senates confirm Justices who, broadly speaking, share the public's values.  Nothing I learned at the conference casts doubt on this phenomenon, but substantial evidence was also presented showing that individual Justices are responsive to public opinion over their careers.

Without posting the data and the regressions run, it's hard to make the point precisely.  It's also hard to distinguish between two phenomena: A) Justice X changes her mind on some question because she observes that public attitudes have changed; versus B) Justice Y, as a participant in the same culture as the population as a whole, changes his mind at roughly the same time that the public does.  With an important exception to which I'll return momentarily, rule-of-law values treat A) as highly questionable: judges are supposed to decide cases according to the law, not public opinion.  By contrast, anyone who is remotely realistic will acknowledge that B) is routine.

Now a word on the exception.  Some doctrines expressly take account of public opinion or something related to it.  For example, under the 8th Amendment, a punishment is impermissibly "cruel and unusual" if it offends "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."  Thus, we can explain the Supreme Court's decisions in the 1970s--first invalidating the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia and then validating new death penalty statutes in Gregg v. Georgia and companion cases--as a process of self-correction: The Justices thought that society had evolved away from the death penalty, but the legislative reaction to Furman showed that it hadn't, and so the Court adjusted in Gregg.

However, outside the context of legal tests that directly incorporate some notion of public opinion or widely shared values, Justices are quite reluctant to acknowledge a direct role for public opinion.  There may well be one--and some of the examples of quick retreats by the Court or individual Justices, without a change in personnel, strongly suggest that public opinion is directly playing such a role.  So too, a large-n study correlating the liberal-versus-conservative "public mood" with liberal or conservative outcomes tends to support the inference of direct impact on Justices' decisions.  But even there, one could hypothesize instead that the Justices are part of the same mood swing so that rather than reacting to the public change of heart, they simply share it.

Two nice test cases that show how hard it is to tease out the difference between Justices reacting to public opinion and Justices changing their own mind are the two living retired Justices: O'Connor and Souter.  Both Justices O'Connor and Souter became generally more liberal over the course of their respective time on the Court, even as the public mood yo-yo'ed a bit.  Moreover, in much of the same period, other Justices, such as Scalia and Thomas, did not become more liberal.  It is thus hard to attribute the ideological drift of either O'Connor or Souter to broad factors affecting the society as a whole or to micro-shifts in public opinion on particular issues.

At the same time, however, it is by now a commonplace that Justice O'Connor had a knack for reflecting public opinion better even than elected legislators.  Whether that was entirely due to her middle-of-the-road sensibility or a mixture of her own attitude and an eye on public opinion is extraordinarily difficult to figure out.  It's quite likely that Justice O'Connor herself doesn't know.

Thus, I came away from the conference thinking that there is a very large research agenda for someone interested in figuring out how public opinion gets translated into judicial decisions.  I also think that research agenda will be very challenging to pursue.  The political scientists' measures of decided cases--in order to produce statistically significant results--must wash out all sorts of legal and doctrinal nuances that make a large difference in particular cases.  A complete picture of the decision making process in the Supreme Court (or other courts) would require expertise in statistics, law, psychology, and likely several other disciplines.  Whether insights from these fields can be successfully synthesized remains to be seen.

9 comments:

徵信社 推薦 said...

徵信,徵信,徵信公司,徵信評鑑,徵信網,抓姦,外遇,討債公司,離婚,外遇,婚姻諮詢,離婚,離婚訴訟,捉姦,外遇,徵信社,徵信公司,徵信公司,外遇,尋人查址,外遇蒐證,徵信社,徵信社,徵信公司,台中徵信,台中徵信,台中徵信,台中徵信,台中徵信社,台中徵信社,台中徵信社,台中徵信社,台北徵信,台北徵信,台北徵信社,台北徵信,台北徵信社,台北徵信,台北徵信社,台北徵信社

徵信社 推薦 said...

護貝機,護貝機,碎紙機,護貝機維修,護貝膠膜,護貝問與答,台中徵信社,台中徵信,外遇,徵信,徵信社,尋人,尋人網,尋人網,徵信,外遇,抓姦,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,婚姻諮詢,私家偵探,偵探社,免費法律諮詢,徵信社,捉姦,抓姦,尋人,大陸徵信,徵信社,外遇,離婚,徵信社,離婚,分手,徵信協會,尋人查址,尋人,徵信公司,商業徵信

Sam Rickless said...

One thought about the differences between Scalia and O'Connor. One of the reasons why O'Connor's decisions are more likely to reflect the prevailing mores is that her judicial philosophy, inasmuch as she has one, is less moored in an inflexible and all-encompassing theory of constitutional interpretation that is itself militantly unresponsive to public opinion than is Scalia's.

goodsasa33 said...


監視器


監視器材


手機訊號強波器


亂剪
 雷門刺青

京王監視器
 大哥大訊號強波器  網站SEO

Stella亂剪旗艦店

網站排名首頁

برامج said...

i realist the differences now thanks
الاندرويد

Dolphin said...

CC
健康的身體和充實的人生^^
防水 抓漏 防水工程 抓漏工程 蛋糕 彌月蛋糕 塑膠棧板 棧板 棧板 塑膠棧板 棧板 塑膠棧板 棧板 塑膠棧板 熱水器 太陽能 整形 眼袋 隆鼻 隆乳 拉皮 抽脂 雙眼皮 玻尿酸 果凍矽膠 格子 格子王 格子舖 團購 公仔 公仔製作 公仔模型 公仔設計 SEO 關鍵字 關鍵字排名 網頁設計 網路行銷 網站排名 網頁優化 SEO

Dolphin said...

DD
最佳的社群網站就在這裡
老酒 老酒收購 老酒 老酒收購 樟芝 納豆 天麻 扭力板手 隔熱紙 大樓隔熱紙 回頭車 貨運公司 百達翡麗 勞力士 江詩丹頓 沛納海 IWC 歐米茄 高仿手錶 百達翡麗 勞力士 江詩丹頓 沛納海 IWC 歐米茄 高仿手錶 防水 抓漏 防水工程 抓漏工程 宜蘭民宿 民宿 植髮 雷射溶脂 瘦小腹 瘦小腿 自體脂肪隆乳 植睫毛 微針抽脂 SEO 關鍵字 關鍵字排名 網頁設計 網路行銷 網站排名 網頁優化

茉莉 said...

台灣美麗澎湖民宿西衛海推薦 合法徵信公司評鑑 澎湖民宿推薦,住在菊島最舒適的民宿裡.徵信社擁有強大的調查資源,徵信探員幫助你釐清工商真象.

生活中你有無法解決的問題?徵信社的幫助是屬於私力救濟範疇,是有償收費服務,主要是民事類和商務類事務的調查取證服務。徵信社滿足您徵信調查的需求。

茉莉 said...

Taiwan free law 080:0800-223-500 please visit 法律諮詢,提供免費法律諮詢,全國法律網