Public Support for Judicial Philosophies
We examine whether the public evaluates Supreme Court nominees on the basis of judicial philosophies when presented with a description of those philosophies. Employing a conjoint experiment, we find that the public will evaluate nominees’ judicial philosophies as well as the nominees’ partisanship,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of law and courts 2021-03, Vol.9 (1), p.89-110 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 110 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 89 |
| container_title | Journal of law and courts |
| container_volume | 9 |
| creator | Krewson, Christopher N. Owens, Ryan J. |
| description | We examine whether the public evaluates Supreme Court nominees on the basis of judicial philosophies when presented with a description of those philosophies. Employing a conjoint experiment, we find that the public will evaluate nominees’ judicial philosophies as well as the nominees’ partisanship, ideology, and qualifications. We also discover significant differences between Republicans and Democrats. These results have important implications for the future of judicial nominations, framing, and public support for the judiciary. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1086/712649 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>uchicagopress</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_uchicagopress_journals_712649</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>712649</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-uchicagopress_journals_7126493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYOAzNNAzNLAw0zc3NDIzsWRi4DQyNDPRNTO1sGSBs80NOBh4i4uzDIDA3NzSxMCAk0EjoDQpJzNZIbi0oCC_qEQhLb9Iwas0JTM5MzFHISAjMye_OL8gIzO1mIeBNS0xpziVF0pzM6i4uYY4e-iWJmdkJiem5xcUpRYXx2fllxblAeXjIQ4xJlIZAI4_N0A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Public Support for Judicial Philosophies</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Krewson, Christopher N. ; Owens, Ryan J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Krewson, Christopher N. ; Owens, Ryan J.</creatorcontrib><description>We examine whether the public evaluates Supreme Court nominees on the basis of judicial philosophies when presented with a description of those philosophies. Employing a conjoint experiment, we find that the public will evaluate nominees’ judicial philosophies as well as the nominees’ partisanship, ideology, and qualifications. We also discover significant differences between Republicans and Democrats. These results have important implications for the future of judicial nominations, framing, and public support for the judiciary.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2164-6570</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2164-6589</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1086/712649</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>The University of Chicago Press</publisher><ispartof>Journal of law and courts, 2021-03, Vol.9 (1), p.89-110</ispartof><rights>2021 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Krewson, Christopher N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Owens, Ryan J.</creatorcontrib><title>Public Support for Judicial Philosophies</title><title>Journal of law and courts</title><description>We examine whether the public evaluates Supreme Court nominees on the basis of judicial philosophies when presented with a description of those philosophies. Employing a conjoint experiment, we find that the public will evaluate nominees’ judicial philosophies as well as the nominees’ partisanship, ideology, and qualifications. We also discover significant differences between Republicans and Democrats. These results have important implications for the future of judicial nominations, framing, and public support for the judiciary.</description><issn>2164-6570</issn><issn>2164-6589</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNpjYOAzNNAzNLAw0zc3NDIzsWRi4DQyNDPRNTO1sGSBs80NOBh4i4uzDIDA3NzSxMCAk0EjoDQpJzNZIbi0oCC_qEQhLb9Iwas0JTM5MzFHISAjMye_OL8gIzO1mIeBNS0xpziVF0pzM6i4uYY4e-iWJmdkJiem5xcUpRYXx2fllxblAeXjIQ4xJlIZAI4_N0A</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Krewson, Christopher N.</creator><creator>Owens, Ryan J.</creator><general>The University of Chicago Press</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>Public Support for Judicial Philosophies</title><author>Krewson, Christopher N. ; Owens, Ryan J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-uchicagopress_journals_7126493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Krewson, Christopher N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Owens, Ryan J.</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Journal of law and courts</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Krewson, Christopher N.</au><au>Owens, Ryan J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Public Support for Judicial Philosophies</atitle><jtitle>Journal of law and courts</jtitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>89</spage><epage>110</epage><pages>89-110</pages><issn>2164-6570</issn><eissn>2164-6589</eissn><abstract>We examine whether the public evaluates Supreme Court nominees on the basis of judicial philosophies when presented with a description of those philosophies. Employing a conjoint experiment, we find that the public will evaluate nominees’ judicial philosophies as well as the nominees’ partisanship, ideology, and qualifications. We also discover significant differences between Republicans and Democrats. These results have important implications for the future of judicial nominations, framing, and public support for the judiciary.</abstract><pub>The University of Chicago Press</pub><doi>10.1086/712649</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2164-6570 |
| ispartof | Journal of law and courts, 2021-03, Vol.9 (1), p.89-110 |
| issn | 2164-6570 2164-6589 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_uchicagopress_journals_712649 |
| source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| title | Public Support for Judicial Philosophies |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T11%3A25%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-uchicagopress&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Public%20Support%20for%20Judicial%20Philosophies&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20law%20and%20courts&rft.au=Krewson,%20Christopher%20N.&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=89&rft.epage=110&rft.pages=89-110&rft.issn=2164-6570&rft.eissn=2164-6589&rft_id=info:doi/10.1086/712649&rft_dat=%3Cuchicagopress%3E712649%3C/uchicagopress%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |