1,721,088 research outputs found
Replication Data for: The Political Determinants of Public Support for Obstruction of Supreme Court Nominees
No full textReplication data and files for "The Political Determinants of Public Support for Obstruction of Supreme Court Nominees.
Replication Data for: Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite Communication
No full textReplication files for "Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite Communication.
Replication Data for: Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite Communication
No full textReplication files for "Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite Communication.
Replication Data for: How Political Contestation over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes toward the Supreme Court
No full textContemporary U.S. Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threaten the Court's legitimacy, little empirical evidence addresses these claims. We argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues which shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and polarizes public opinion across partisan lines. Data from a conjoint experiment administered in the first days of the Trump presidency support our argument. Political rhetoric attributed to President Trump and Senate Democrats substantially polarized partisans' views of nominees and evaluations of the Court's legitimacy, with Republicans [Democrats] expressing significantly more [less] favorable attitudes. Additional analyses suggest that contestation generates divergent partisan responses by affecting views about the nominee's impartiality. These findings challenge existing perspectives that depict attitudes toward the judiciary as resistant to partisan considerations and have important implications for the Court's legitimacy in a polarized era
Replication Data for: How Political Contestation over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes toward the Supreme Court
No full textContemporary U.S. Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threaten the Court's legitimacy, little empirical evidence addresses these claims. We argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues which shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and polarizes public opinion across partisan lines. Data from a conjoint experiment administered in the first days of the Trump presidency support our argument. Political rhetoric attributed to President Trump and Senate Democrats substantially polarized partisans' views of nominees and evaluations of the Court's legitimacy, with Republicans [Democrats] expressing significantly more [less] favorable attitudes. Additional analyses suggest that contestation generates divergent partisan responses by affecting views about the nominee's impartiality. These findings challenge existing perspectives that depict attitudes toward the judiciary as resistant to partisan considerations and have important implications for the Court's legitimacy in a polarized era
Replication Data for: Patterns and Consequences of Elite Politicization of the American Judiciary
No full textThis repository contains the quantitative data used in the dissertation "Patterns and Consequences of Elite Politicization of the American Judiciary." These datasets will likely become out of date over time. If any paper is subsequently published, I will upload individual replication packages to the appropriate data archive. Please contact me with any questions at [email protected] or [email protected]
Replication Data for: Descriptive Representation and Public Support for Supreme Court Nominees
No full textThough the demographic characteristics of judicial nominees in the United States have gained increased political attention in recent years, relatively little is known about how they affect public opinion toward judicial nominees and courts. We evaluate these relationships in the context of race and gender using a conjoint experiment conducted during a recent vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. We find consistent evidence that Americans are more supportive of coracial nominees, particularly among white Republicans and Black Democrats, but no evidence of a similar effect on the basis of gender. Our results have important implications for theories of descriptive representation and suggest limits to its use as a means for generating political support for judicial nominees
Replication Data for: Descriptive Representation and Public Support for Supreme Court Nominees
No full textThough the demographic characteristics of judicial nominees in the United States have gained increased political attention in recent years, relatively little is known about how they affect public opinion toward judicial nominees and courts. We evaluate these relationships in the context of race and gender using a conjoint experiment conducted during a recent vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. We find consistent evidence that Americans are more supportive of coracial nominees, particularly among white Republicans and Black Democrats, but no evidence of a similar effect on the basis of gender. Our results have important implications for theories of descriptive representation and suggest limits to its use as a means for generating political support for judicial nominees
- …
