Research Note:Twitter and the Supreme Court: An Examination of Congressional Tweets about the Supreme Court

Krewson, Chris; Lassen, David; Owens, Ryan J.

doi:10.1080/0098261x.2018.1483787

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The way the Court is discussed in the American public has changed (Solberg and Waltenburg 2014); the “cult of the robe” now shares media space with “cult of personality” stories that have come to typify coverage of the Court (much like coverage of other institutions). Similarly, when public figures speak out about the Court, their communications reflect clear partisan content (Krewson, Lassen, and Owens 2018). I do not necessarily argue that the Court is viewed as more or less legitimate now than in the past.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loyalty over Fairness: Acceptance of Unfair Supreme Court Procedures

Armaly

2020

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence of procedural fairness leads individuals to support Supreme Court decisions, even ones with which they disagree. Yet, in some settings, unfair behavior is seen as acceptable, even praiseworthy, if it yields a pleasing outcome for one’s group. The loyalty norm occasionally trumps the fairness norm, and group loyalty has taken on increasing importance in American politics. I use a nationally representative survey with an embedded experiment, and a convenience sample survey experiment, to relate group (i.e., partisan) loyalty and perceptions of (un)fair behavior to support for the Court. I find that when group concerns are unclear, individuals tend to punish the Court for unfair behavior. However, despite conventional wisdom regarding fairness and support, individuals fail to censure unfair behavior when their group benefits from the Court’s impropriety. These effects hold when integrating preferences regarding specific case outcomes. Perceived unfair procedures do not universally harm evaluations of the Supreme Court.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loyalty over Fairness: Acceptance of Unfair Supreme Court Procedures

Armaly

2020

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Baird and Gangl (2006) found that members of the public are more likely to respond negatively to reports of a politicized Court. This is troubling given how media outlets and political elites have historically been known to sensationalize the Court's decisions by highlighting ideological divisions in attempts to spur attentiveness and readership (Hitt and Searles 2018;Krewson, Lassen, and Owens 2018;Zilis 2015). 4 Given this, it bears to question why the public is so reliant on media actors to serve as intermediaries between them and the Court.…”

Section: An Economic Model Of Supreme Court Newsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A final question, and perhaps most important, is discerning how media-affiliated accounts decide what to cover. Through the traditional lens of the economic model (Hamilton 2004;McManus 1988;Vining and Marcin 2014;Vining, Wilhelm, and Collens 2015), choices to cover the Supreme Court often lead to sensationalized reporting and only provide for cases that can facilitate engagement with audiences (Krewson, Lassen, and Owens 2018;Zilis 2015). Considering how Americans are increasingly likely to view the Court and its Justices through a partisan lens (Pew Research Center 2022a, 2022b; Vining and Bitecofer 2023), it is unsurprising that popular media coverage of decisions would be most pronounced when they concern prominent social or political issues.…”

Section: Social Media As a Platform For Supreme Court Newsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, this is not to say that behaviors across mediums are identical. It is important to remember that coverage of the Court's decision-making has historically been viewed as sporadic and often reserved for those sure to provide a profound effect on the national discourse (Hitt and Searles 2018;Krewson, Lassen, and Owens 2018;Zilis 2015). Bearing this in mind, it is perhaps unsurprising that several studies have attributed degrees of social and political salience to cases reflective of their coverage in popular media (Clark, Lax, and Rice 2015;Collins and Cooper 2012;Epstein and Segal 2000;Strother 2017).…”

Section: Observing Supreme Court News In a Social Media Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Social Media Platform Model of Supreme Court News

Truscott

2024

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An economic model of news contends that the pressures of limited column space and market competition force media actors to be strategic concerning which notable events receive exhaustive coverage, if any at all. Applying this framework to the Supreme Court can explain why coverage of the Justices’ decision-making has historically been sensationalized and reserved for decisions sure to have a pronounced effect on public discourse. However, the emergence of social media as a practical alternative for mass media dissemination raises notable questions, chief among them being whether the economic framework fully extends to this newer medium. In this study, I analyze media coverage of the Court’s decisions using Twitter and observe important distinctions among environments for news dissemination. I argue that the apparent reduction in the economic costs associated with coverage dissemination and consumption on social media platforms like Twitter requires viewing Supreme Court news in these environments through an amended theoretical framework.

show abstract

“…It is now treated much more like the elected branches by the media (Salamone, 2018; Solberg & Waltenburg, 2014; Solberg, 2017). Elite commentary on the Court reflects clear partisan content (Krewson et al, 2018). Such media and elite narratives underlie the degree of support the mass public has for the institution (Nelson & Gibson, 2019; Ramirez, 2008).…”

Section: Winners Losers and Public Support For The Judiciarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court

Armaly

Lane

2022

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supreme Court vacancies are now characterized by great partisan efforts to confirm—or impede—the nomination. Amid a politicized vacancy before the 2020 election, there was cause to question the conclusion that these vacancies do not harm the judiciary in the public’s eyes. We utilize panel data collected before and after Justice Ginsburg’s death to investigate the effects of the vacancy and partisan posturing to fill it. We find that the battle over the vacancy yielded decreases in diffuse support among Democrats, particularly among those who read a story about Senate Republicans’ willingness to fill an election-year vacancy after refusing to in 2016. Support for federal judicial elections decreased across survey waves, but only among certain subsets of respondents. Finally, belief that one’s preferred 2020 candidate would nominate the next justice significantly influenced support for curbing. Elected branch politics appear capable of influencing the mass public’s level of support for the Court.

show abstract

Research Note:Twitter and the Supreme Court: An Examination of Congressional Tweets about the Supreme Court

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Loyalty over Fairness: Acceptance of Unfair Supreme Court Procedures

Loyalty over Fairness: Acceptance of Unfair Supreme Court Procedures

A Social Media Platform Model of Supreme Court News

Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About