Dissent, Legitimacy, and Public Support for Court Decisions: Evidence from a Survey-Based Experiment

Abstract

Scholars often argue that whereas unanimous rulings should boost public support for court decisions, dissents should fuel public opposition. Previous studies on public responses to U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that unanimity does in fact bolster support. However, a recent study has also found that dissents may increase support among opponents of a court decision by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. By examining how individuals react to dissents from the Supreme Court of Norway, this article is the first study outside the U.S. context of the public's reaction to unanimity and dissent. Breaking with the common notion of the negative effects of dissent on public support, the article shows that when the Supreme Court handles cases of higher political salience, the formulation of dissenting opinions can be a meaningful way of securing greater support for its policy outputs by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. Contrary to recent studies, however, this positive influence of dissent is irrespective of individuals' ex ante policy views.

Beyond the Myth of Legality? Framing Effects and Public Reactions to High Court Decisions in Europe

“…For example, in a study about the UK Supreme Court’s Brexit ruling, Gonzalez-Ocantos and Dinas (2019) show that stressing extra-legal considerations produced no damaging effects on citizens’ compliance. In Norway, Bentsen (2019) found no evidence that dissents—a potential cue about extra-legal considerations playing a role in decision-making—have a negative influence on people’s acceptance of court rulings and may even have positive effects in the context of higher-salience decisions. Finally, Engst et al (2018) show that there are “degrees” in the level of “judiciousness” people assign to potential nominees to the (German) Constitutional Court: although federal judges are seen as most appropriate to serve in the court, nominees from outside the judiciary—such as lawyers or professors—still manage to obtain significantly more support from citizens than partisan politicians.…”

Judicial Decision-Making. A Survey of the Experimental Evidence

“…If, by contrast, judges are perceived as policy makers, members of the public only accept the decisions with which they agree on substance (Woodson 2015). In Norway, where the judiciary is less perceived as politicized, public support increases when the decision comes with a dissenting opinion that makes the normative conflict transparent (Bentsen 2019).…”

Carlos Rosenkrantz, el juez disidente. A seis años de su llegada a la Corte Suprema

“…jor aceptadas por aquellos que perdieron el caso (Bentsen, 2019), 11 particularmente en un entorno político y social altamente polarizado (Salamone, 2018). En Teoría Política, la disidencia ha sido estudiada principalmente en relación con el poder gubernamental, indagando cómo y en qué medida debe ser promovida, tolerada y controlada por el Estado (Leppänen, 2016).…”

“…Si bien es cierto que se unió a la mayoría en muchos casos trascendentes 13 y que escribió opiniones concurrentes sumamente interesantes que invitan a la reflexión, 14 este trabajo se centrará exclusivamente en su rol como juez disidente, para lo cual analizaré tres de sus más notables votos en soledad: Schiffrin,15 Fernández de Kirchner 16 y Batalla. 17 Intentaré argumentar que, en un ambiente de polarización social y política como el que se vive en la República Argentina, el ejercicio razonable del disenso judicial realizado por el juez Rosenkrantz en la Corte Suprema ha sido saludable, amén de deseable, 11 Bentsen (2019) argumenta, después de estudiar la Corte Suprema de Noruega, que cuando el público está muy polarizado sobre un tema, es de esperarse que los jueces también estén polarizados sobre la cuestión que deben resolver. 12 Según el Black´s Law Dictionary (Garner, 2019), el término "disidencia" significa: "[a] disagreement with a majority opinion, esp.…”