1,722,120 research outputs found
Replication Data for: The Stability and Durability of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
No full textIs support for the U.S. Supreme Court stable over time? Recent studies present conflicting evidence about the extent to which dissatisfaction with the Court’s performance affects its public
support. Drawing upon a four-year panel study of Americans’ support for the Supreme Court, we demonstrate that the Court’s support has been remarkably stable in the aggregate, though
there has been systematic change at the individual level. These individual-level changes are related to respondents’ satisfaction with the Court’s performance and their political orientations. The results both confirm and challenge conventional wisdom, emphasizing the importance of studying individual-level change in attitudes even in the face of aggregate stability
Replication Data for: Human Capital in Court: The Role of Attorney Experience in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation
No full textHuman capital theory suggests that work experience acquired through on-the-job-training primes people to be more successful. Empirical validations of this hypothesis are numerous, but limited evidence of the relevance of human capital for courtroom advocacy exists. We examine whether the outcomes obtained by experienced attorneys are significantly better than the outcomes they would have obtained as novices. Adopting a strategy for credible causal inference that could be applied to almost any peak court, the analysis shows that attorneys with experience, relative to first-timers, are significantly and consistently more likely to win their cases and capture the votes of judges
Replication Data for: Judging Prosecutors: Public Support for Prosecutorial Discretion
No full textProsecutors have immense discretion to determine which offenses to charge, which cases to take to trial, and which sentences to recommend. Yet, even though many of the prosecutors who exercise this discretion over important crimes must face the electorate to keep their jobs, we know little about how the use of this discretion affects prosecutors' electoral fortunes. Drawing on two experiments embedded in a nationally-representative survey, we demonstrate that the public is more supportive of prosecutors who issue lenient sentences, at least for low-level crimes. The results have important implications for criminal justice reform inasmuch as they provide a linkage between progressive prosecutorial behavior and respondents' vote intentions
Replication Data for: The Economic Costs of Democratic Backsliding? Backsliding and State Location Preferences of U.S. Job-seekers
No full textPolitical checks on democratic backsliding can be ineffective. But, there may be economic costs for backsliding regimes if talented individuals seeking job opportunities prefer to not live in backsliding areas. Of course, factors other than the quality of democracy may be more important to job seekers, limiting the efficacy of this economic check. We test these possibilities in an area characterized as experiencing backsliding - the U.S. states - using a conjoint experiment. We provide hypothetical job opportunities to a sample of U.S. adults in the labor market and another sample of students at a large, selective public university. We find that jobs located in states experiencing democratic backsliding are viewed less favorably. Moreover, some types of backsliding affect willingness to "accept" a hypothetical job, especially among Democrats in the non-student sample
Political, Legal, Economic, and Social Inequality State Supreme Court Database
No full textThis dataset contains information on cases decided in the 50 state supreme courts between 1990 and 2015
Replication Data for: How Does Hyper-Politicized Rhetoric Affect the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy?
No full textMany believe that President Trump's criticisms of the judiciary pose real and immediate threats to judicial legitimacy. However, framing theory suggests that source credibility is a prerequisite for such frames to be effective. Relying on an experiment embedded in a multi-wave, nationally representative sample of Americans, we examine whether public attacks on the judiciary—by either Trump or distinguished law professors—affect the U.S. Supreme Court's legitimacy. We demonstrate that criticisms of the Court from either source are only deleterious among respondents who believe the source is credible; source credibility also shapes agreement with the criticism. Because President Trump is viewed with distrust by a majority of Americans, his comments pose only a limited threat to the Court's legitimacy. However, our data also suggest that a more credible source (inside or outside government), using similar attacks, could do considerable damage to the legitimacy of the American government's most fragile branch
Replication Data for: How Does Hyper-Politicized Rhetoric Affect the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy?
No full textMany believe that President Trump's criticisms of the judiciary pose real and immediate threats to judicial legitimacy. However, framing theory suggests that source credibility is a prerequisite for such frames to be effective. Relying on an experiment embedded in a multi-wave, nationally representative sample of Americans, we examine whether public attacks on the judiciary—by either Trump or distinguished law professors—affect the U.S. Supreme Court's legitimacy. We demonstrate that criticisms of the Court from either source are only deleterious among respondents who believe the source is credible; source credibility also shapes agreement with the criticism. Because President Trump is viewed with distrust by a majority of Americans, his comments pose only a limited threat to the Court's legitimacy. However, our data also suggest that a more credible source (inside or outside government), using similar attacks, could do considerable damage to the legitimacy of the American government's most fragile branch
Replication Data for: Judging Prosecutors: Public Support for Prosecutorial Discretion
No full textProsecutors have immense discretion to determine which offenses to charge, which cases to take to trial, and which sentences to recommend. Yet, even though many of the prosecutors who exercise this discretion over important crimes must face the electorate to keep their jobs, we know little about how the use of this discretion affects prosecutors' electoral fortunes. Drawing on two experiments embedded in a nationally-representative survey, we demonstrate that the public is more supportive of prosecutors who issue lenient sentences, at least for low-level crimes. The results have important implications for criminal justice reform inasmuch as they provide a linkage between progressive prosecutorial behavior and respondents' vote intentions
Replication Data for: The Stability and Durability of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
No full textIs support for the U.S. Supreme Court stable over time? Recent studies present conflicting evidence about the extent to which dissatisfaction with the Court’s performance affects its public
support. Drawing upon a four-year panel study of Americans’ support for the Supreme Court, we demonstrate that the Court’s support has been remarkably stable in the aggregate, though
there has been systematic change at the individual level. These individual-level changes are related to respondents’ satisfaction with the Court’s performance and their political orientations. The results both confirm and challenge conventional wisdom, emphasizing the importance of studying individual-level change in attitudes even in the face of aggregate stability
Replication Data for: Are Courts Different?: Experimental Evidence on the Unique Costs of Attacking Courts
No full textU.S. courts have long been thought to be held in special regard by the American public, and public support is theorized to protect institutions from interbranch aggression. At the same time, recent research underscores that institutional fealty and public reaction to court curbing is shaped by partisan concerns. Drawing on a survey experiment fielded in the U.S., we evaluate whether (1) the public is uniquely punitive toward incumbents who seek to undermine a court rather than an agency and (2) the extent to which these penalties are dependent upon shared partisanship with the proposer. We are the first to demonstrate that the public is less supportive of efforts to strip judicial power than analogous efforts to strip power from an executive agency, but that this penalty for court curbing dissipates in the face of copartisanship. This substantiates previous claims regarding the role of partisanship on shaping public attitudes about high courts, but underscores that the American public may still hold the courts in unique regard, when contrasted to other political institutions
- …
