Assessing the Consequences of Politicized Confirmation Processes

评估政治化确认过程的后果

• 批准号: 0553156
• 负责人: James Gibson
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Washington University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2006
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2006-03-01 至 2008-02-29
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0553156&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Assessing; Consequences; Politicized; Confirmation; Processes

AbstractAlthough scholars have devoted a considerable amount of effort toward understanding public attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court, almost all earlier research has been static in nature. This is unfortunate, since there can be little doubt that major exogenous events can have an enduring impact on public opinion.One such major exogenous event is a contentious confirmation process for nominees to the United States Supreme Court. And one such attitude of interest has to do with the legitimacy citizens ascribe to the Court. Thus, the purpose of this project is to examine the impact of confirmation processes on the willingness of the American people to extend institutional legitimacy to the United States Supreme Court. This project takes advantage of the historical rarity of three Supreme Court nominations taking place essentially simultaneously. With the death of William Rehnquist, the Roberts nomination for the position of Associate Justice was withdrawn and resubmitted for the position of Chief Justice. President Bush then nominated Harriet Miers, to replace Justice OConnor but that nomination was withdrawn. The President has nominated Samuel Alito for OConnors seat. All these nominations have become more controversial as a result of (1) the shift to the chief justice in the case of Roberts, (2) questions about low qualification in the case of Miers and (3) OConnors centrist position on most issues compared to Alito, who is viewed as more ideological. Thus the American people are being exposed to an eye-catching level of conflict over not just the nominees, but also the role of the Supreme Court in American politics. During earlier confirmation fights, scholars have indeed examined public opinion. But no such earlier research has had in place a survey conducted prior to the confirmation process that might stand as a baseline for an analysis of change in perceived legitimacy. Fortunately, a national survey we conducted in the summer of 2005 did indeed address the Courts legitimacy. This face-to-face nationally representative sample can be mobilized in a three-wave panel designed to provide rigorous estimates of the nature of the impact of politicized confirmation processes on public attitudes. That is precisely the research design of this project.Intellectual Merit. Legitimacy theory is one of the most important theories we have for understanding the role of courts in democratic societies. The theory asserts that courts are especially dependent upon legitimacy for their effectiveness (since they have neither the power of the purse nor the sword). But legitimacy is fragile, and its origins are poorly understood. Current theorizing posits a positive bias, which means that increased attentiveness to courts (for whatever reason) results in greater exposure to powerful symbols of judicial legitimacy. But what if increased attention to courts results in exposure to attacks on court nominees impugning their impartiality? Undoubtedly, little positivity can be found in such ads. Highly politicized nomination processes (themselves perhaps a reflection of deep ideological divisions in American politics) provide a propitious context for further development of theories of the origins of judicial legitimacy.Broader Impact. One element of the project is to establish a research approach that can be utilized to study important events as they unfold in politics. Research designs are overwhelmingly reactive, and as such, have limited ability to deal with processes of change. This research will stand as a model for how existing surveys can be exploited in the context of unfolding events to allow studies of the impact of those events on public opinion.

摘要 尽管学者们投入了大量的精力来了解公众对美国最高法院的态度，但几乎所有早期的研究本质上都是静态的。这是不幸的，因为毫无疑问，重大外生事件会对公众舆论产生持久影响。其中一个重大外生事件是美国最高法院提名人的有争议的确认程序。一种这样的利益态度与公民赋予法院的合法性有关。因此，该项目的目的是研究确认程序对美国人民将机构合法性延伸至美国最高法院的意愿的影响。该项目利用了历史上罕见的三项最高法院提名基本上同时进行的优势。随着威廉·伦奎斯特的去世，罗伯茨对副大法官职位的提名被撤回，并重新提交首席大法官职位。布什总统随后提名哈里特·迈尔斯接替奥康纳大法官，但该提名被撤回。总统已提名塞缪尔·阿利托竞选奥康纳斯席位。由于以下原因，所有这些提名都变得更具争议性：(1) 罗伯茨案件中转向首席大法官；(2) 迈尔斯案件中资格较低的问题；(3) 与被认为更具意识形态性的阿利托相比，奥康纳在大多数问题上采取中间派立场。因此，美国人民不仅在提名人问题上，而且在最高法院在美国政治中的角色问题上，都面临着引人注目的冲突。在早期的确认斗争中，学者们确实审视了公众舆论。但此类早期研究还没有在确认过程之前进行调查，可以作为分析感知合法性变化的基线。幸运的是，我们在 2005 年夏天进行的一项全国调查确实解决了法院的合法性问题。 这种面对面的全国代表性样本可以在三波小组中动员起来，旨在对政治化确认过程对公众态度影响的性质进行严格估计。这正是本项目的研究设计。智力价值。合法性理论是我们理解法院在民主社会中的作用的最重要的理论之一。该理论认为，法院的有效性特别依赖于合法性（因为它们既没有钱包的权力，也没有剑的权力）。但合法性很脆弱，其起源也鲜为人知。 当前的理论假设存在积极偏见，这意味着对法院的更多关注（无论出于何种原因）会导致更多地接触司法合法性的强大象征。但是，如果对法院的更多关注导致法院提名人受到攻击，质疑其公正性，该怎么办？毫无疑问，这样的广告几乎看不到积极的一面。高度政治化的提名程序（本身也许反映了美国政治中深刻的意识形态分歧）为司法合法性起源理论的进一步发展提供了有利的背景。更广泛的影响。该项目的一个要素是建立一种研究方法，可用于研究政治中发生的重要事件。研究设计绝大多数是反应性的，因此处理变化过程的能力有限。这项研究将成为如何在正在发生的事件的背景下利用现有调查的模型，以研究这些事件对公众舆论的影响。