Read more
Explains when, why, and how citizens try to limit the Supreme Court's independence and power-- and why it matters.
List of contents
1. The guardians of judicial independence; 2. Theories of public support for court-curbing; 3. A deep dive into Supreme Court evaluation and support; 4. General policy disagreement and broadly targeted court-curbing; 5. Specific policy disagreement and support for court-curbing; 6. Partisan polarization and support for court-curbing; 7. Procedural perceptions and motivated reasoning; 8. Reconsidering the public foundations of judicial independence.
About the author
Brandon L. Bartels is Associate Professor of Political Science at George Washington University and co-editor of Making Law and Courts Research Relevant, published by Routledge. His research has appeared in journals such as the American Political Science Review and American Journal of Political Science.Christopher D. Johnston is Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University. He is co-author of The Ambivalent Partisan, published by Oxford University Press, and Open Versus Closed: Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution, published by Cambridge University Press, both of which won the David O. Sears award.
Summary
This book explains why citizens often support curbing attacks on the Supreme Court, and how this subsequently constrains the Court's political independence and power. The authors shed light on why contemporary debates over the Supreme Court are so contentious, particularly during times of increased partisan polarization.
Additional text
'This is a timely work on a hotly contested scholarly debate. The authors have done a masterful job, and the contributions are many, including distinguishing types of Court curbing and legitimacy, bolstering arguments on the malleability of opinion and the dominance of policy ends over procedural means - not to mention showing that the Court is no more immune to polarization than the other branches.' Dino Christenson, Boston University
