Assessing the Consequences of Politicized Confirmation Processes

尽管学者们花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都是静态的。这是不幸的，因为毫无疑问，重大的外部事件可以对公众舆论产生持久的影响。这样的重大外部事件之一是对美国最高法院提名人的有争议的确认过程。其中一种感兴趣的态度与公民赋予最高法院的合法性有关。因此，本项目的目的是审查确认程序对美国人民将机构合法性延伸到美国最高法院的意愿的影响。这个项目利用了历史上罕见的三次最高法院提名基本上同时进行的情况。随着威廉·伦奎斯特的去世，罗伯茨对助理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·迈尔斯接替大法官奥康纳，但提名被撤回。总统提名塞缪尔·阿利托竞选奥康纳斯的席位。所有这些提名都变得更具争议性，原因是(1)在罗伯茨案中转向首席大法官，(2)迈尔斯案中资历较低的问题，以及(3)与被视为更具意识形态的阿利托相比，奥康纳斯在大多数问题上的中间立场。因此，美国人民面临着引人注目的冲突，不仅是在提名人身上，而且在最高法院在美国政治中的角色上也是如此。在早些时候的确认之争中，学者们确实研究过公众舆论。但没有这样的早期研究在确认过程之前进行的调查，可能会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。这个面对面的具有全国代表性的样本可以在一个三波小组中动员起来，该小组旨在对政治化确认过程对公众态度的影响的性质提供严格的估计。这正是本项目的研究设计。智力功绩。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力量，也没有剑的力量)。但合法性是脆弱的，人们对其起源知之甚少。目前的理论假设是一种积极的偏见，这意味着(无论出于什么原因)对法院的关注增加，会导致更多地接触到司法合法性的强大象征。但是，如果对法院的日益关注导致对法院提名人的攻击，指责他们的公正性，该怎么办？毫无疑问，在这样的广告中几乎找不到积极的一面。高度政治化的提名过程(它们本身可能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，可用于研究在政治中展开的重要事件。研究设计是压倒性的反应性设计，因此，处理变化过程的能力有限。这项研究将成为如何在开展事件的背景下利用现有调查的模式，以便能够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 With the death of William Rehnquist, the Roberts nomination for the position of Associate Justice was withdrawn and resubmitted for the position of Chief Justice. President Bush then nominated Harriet Miers, to replace Justice OConnor but that nomination was withdrawn.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.