Assessing the Consequences of Politicized Confirmation Processes

虽然学者们已经投入了相当大的努力来了解公众对美国最高法院的态度，几乎所有早期的研究一直是静态的性质。这是不幸的，因为毫无疑问，重大的外部事件会对公众舆论产生持久的影响，其中一个重大的外部事件就是对美国最高法院提名人的有争议的确认过程。其中一种兴趣态度与公民赋予最高法院的合法性有关。因此，本项目的目的是研究确认程序对美国人民将机构合法性扩展到美国最高法院的意愿的影响。这个项目利用了三个最高法院提名基本上同时发生的历史罕见性。随着威廉·恩奎斯特的去世，罗伯茨的大法官提名被撤回，并重新提名为首席大法官。布什总统随后提名哈里特迈尔斯取代奥康纳大法官，但提名被撤回。总统提名塞缪尔·阿利托为奥康纳的候选人。所有这些提名都变得更具争议性，原因是（1）罗伯茨案中的首席大法官职位的转变，（2）迈尔斯案中的低资格问题，以及（3）与阿利托相比，奥康纳在大多数问题上的中间立场，阿利托被认为更具意识形态。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。在早些时候的确认之争中，学者们确实研究了公众舆论。但是，没有这样的早期研究已经到位的确认过程之前进行的调查，可能作为一个基线的变化分析感知的合法性。幸运的是，我们在2005年夏天进行的一项全国调查确实涉及到法院的合法性问题。 这种面对面的全国代表性样本可以在一个三波小组中动员起来，旨在对政治化的确认过程对公众态度的影响的性质进行严格的估计。这正是这个项目的研究设计。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（因为它们既没有金钱的力量，也没有刀剑的力量）。但合法性是脆弱的，其起源也知之甚少。 目前的理论假设是一种积极的偏见，这意味着对法院的关注增加（无论出于何种原因）会导致更多地接触到司法合法性的强大象征。但是，如果对法院越来越多的关注导致法院提名人受到攻击，质疑他们的公正性，那该怎么办？毫无疑问，在这样的广告中几乎找不到积极性。高度政治化的提名程序（其本身或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。该项目的一个要素是建立一种研究方法，可用于研究政治中出现的重要事件。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。这项研究将成为一个模式，说明如何在正在发生的事件的背景下利用现有的调查，以便研究这些事件对公众舆论的影响。

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 With the death of William Rehnquist, the Roberts nomination for the position of Associate Justice was withdrawn and resubmitted for the position of Chief Justice. President Bush then nominated Harriet Miers, to replace Justice OConnor but that nomination was withdrawn.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.