Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court

Dürr, Robert; Martin, Andrew D.; Wolbrecht, Christina

doi:10.2307/2669280

Cited by 124 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Stimson's algorithm also allows us to weight survey findings by the number of respondents each survey utilizes and interpolate findings in rare time periods when we lack data. Such methods have been used to create over‐time measures of policy liberalism or conservatism (so‐called “policy mood”) by bringing together hundreds of specific issue attitudes (Erikson, MacKuen, and Stimson ; Stimson ) as well as bring together disparate survey marginals from many sources into single over‐time measures of congressional approval (Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht ) and judicial approval (Durr, Martin, and Wolbrecht ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same‐Sex Marriage and Civil Unions

Johnson

2012

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, opposition to same‐sex marriage and civil unions has primarily been explained in individual, cross‐sectional fashion using demographic and political characteristics as well as other policy attitudes. Such efforts have yet to explain movement in aggregate opinion on this policy debate over time. One factor driving such movement might be evolving information dynamics related to how the media cover same‐sex marriage and civil unions. I examine how media framing capturing discussions of equality and morality shapes how the public feels concerning same‐sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011, explaining how media content capturing core values plays a significant role in driving levels of opposition. I find strong evidence that equality framing drives opposition to same‐sex marriage and civil unions downward, as does the extent to which equality framing surpasses morality framing in the competition for space on the media's agenda. Related Articles Related Media Polling Report. . “Same‐Sex Marriage, Gay Rights”: Surveys Conducted between 1998‐2012.” http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm National Conference of State Legislatures. . “Same‐Sex Marriage on the Ballot.” http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures‐elections/elections/same‐sex‐marriage‐on‐the‐ballot.aspx A la fecha, la oposición a los matrimonios y uniones civiles entre personas del mismo sexo ha sido explicada principalmente usando estudios transversales individuales que incorporan características demográficas y políticas, así como otras posturas políticas. Un factor impulsando este movimiento puede ser la cambiante dinámica de la información relacionada a cómo los medios de comunicación reportan información sobre matrimonios y uniones civiles del mismo sexo. Examino cómo la presentación de las discusiones sobre igualdad y moralidad condicionan la opinión pública sobre matrimonios y uniones civiles de los años 2004 a 2011, explicando cómo la captura valores fundamentales en contenido de los medios de comunicación juega un papel importante en los niveles de oposición. Encuentro evidencia significativa indicando que la presentación de la información en términos de igualdad disminuye la oposición a matrimonios y uniones civiles entre personas del mismo sexo, hasta el punto en el que la presentación en términos de igualdad supera la presentación en términos morales en la competencia por espacio dentro de la agenda de los medios de comunicación.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same‐Sex Marriage and Civil Unions

Johnson

2012

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of what we know about how people evaluate government concerns politicians and institutions at the national level-from approval of the president to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court to public dissatisfaction with Congress (Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht 1997;Durr, Martin, and Wolbrecht 2000;Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 1995;Kimball and Patterson 1997;Mondak and Smithey 1997). But the system of government in the United States is a federal one, where a number of important policy responsibilities are left to state governments rather than the national government.…”

Section: W Hat Do People Think About Their Government?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Public Confidence in the Branches of State Government

Kelleher

Wolak

2007

Political Research Quarterly

134

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What explains public confidence in the leadership of government institutions at the state level? The authors explore how political processes, the nature of representation, and economic and policy performance in the states translate into citizen confidence in state institutions. Using a multilevel modeling approach, the authors consider the sources of public confidence in the people who lead state legislatures, offices of the governor, and state courts. While the explanations for government confidence at the state level resemble, in part, those of the national government, the authors also observe notable differences, with each branch of state government drawing on distinct sources of public satisfaction.

show abstract

“…10 The probability of decisions of unconstitutionality increases as the level of competition rises between the legislature and executive branches (Figueiredo et al, 2006: 207-212;Weingast, 2002: 676;Chavez, 2004;Epstein et al, 2001), within the party system (Smithey and Ishiyama, 2002;Herron and Randazzo, 2003), or within the political elite (Ginsburg, 2003: 106-157;VonDoepp, 2006VonDoepp, , 2008VonDoepp, , 2009). The Court is also likely to strike down laws when the judiciary has its own policy (Segal and Cover, 1989;Segal et al, 1995;Steunenberg, 1997) and when the judiciary enjoys public support (Vanberg, 2008: 106-111;Durr et al, 2000;McGuire and Stimson, 2004;Vanberg, 2001;Staton, 2006). In general, these features point to a tendency for relatively frequent and independent review.…”

Section: Abstract Constitutional Review In Turkeymentioning

confidence: 99%

Hegemonic preservation or horizontal accountability: constitutional review in Turkey

Hazama¹

2011

International Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does constitutional review in emerging democracies tend to enhance horizontal accountability or to preserve state-elite hegemony? The results of a quantitative analysis of abstract constitutional review in Turkey during the 1984-2007 period show: (1) that the Constitutional Court was no more likely to accept unconstitutionality claims by state-elite parties than by non-state-elite parties; and (2) that the Constitutional Court was more likely to accept unconstitutionality claims of executive transgressions than those of stateprinciples violations. In sum, the findings largely point to the Constitutional Court's preference for horizontal accountability over hegemonic preservation.

show abstract

Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court

Cited by 124 publications

References 22 publications

Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same‐Sex Marriage and Civil Unions

Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same‐Sex Marriage and Civil Unions

Explaining Public Confidence in the Branches of State Government

Hegemonic preservation or horizontal accountability: constitutional review in Turkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About