The Supreme Court, Judicial Review, and the Public: Leadership versus Dialogue

By Solimine, Michael E.; Walker, James L. | Constitutional Commentary, Winter 1994 | Go to article overview

The Supreme Court, Judicial Review, and the Public: Leadership versus Dialogue


Solimine, Michael E., Walker, James L., Constitutional Commentary


[T]he most interesting thing about the great flag-burning debate of the late 1980s would be how quickly that debate evaporated . . .

. . . I can't even remember what my own opinion was on the flag issue, though I remember I had a strong one.

--P.J. O'Rourke(1)

In his article, Dialogue and Judicial Review,(2) Barry Friedman poses a trenchant challenge to some received wisdom of American constitutional law. Much constitutional discourse is predicated on the assumption that the United States Supreme Court is a counter-majoritarian institution, and normative theories supporting the exercise of judicial review are seen, by some, as having to accommodate that fact. Many writers make this accommodation by showing that the other branches of government are not majoritarian.(3) Friedman takes a different tack. According to Friedman, the assumption of counter-majoritarianism is wrong, for there are several indicia that the Court is a majoritarian political institution and in particular that it does respond to, and in turn influences, public opinion.

Thus, as Friedman notes, the Court sometimes makes reference to legislative enactments among the various states when rendering a decision;(4) "[p]ublic opinion polls establish that, contrary to common thought, judicial decisions often gamer substantial public support";(5) and polls show that the public, in general, holds the Court in high regard.6 Moreover, the public can indirectly influence judicial decisions through the appointment process, since Presidents usually nominate Justices with compatible ideologies.(7) In short, "[t]he Court facilitates and shapes the constitutional debate"(8) since its decisions are generally consistent with, and to some extent formative of, the public's views of the issues which reach the Court.

Friedman's contribution to our understanding of constitutional law is important because it focuses on the supposed empirical underpinnings of the counter-majoritarian assumption. Unfortunately, we think that Friedman's use and interpretation of social science data is partially flawed, That data is more complex and nuanced than he indicates, and this fact calls into question the breadth of some of the conclusions he reaches.(9)

First, the polling data with respect to public support of particular decisions is, at best, equivocal. As Friedman himself notes, with some cases, such as the flagburning decisions of 1989 and 1990,(10) solid majorities of the public seem to be opposed to the results.(11) Many other decisions, in contrast, receive support in the polls. But on the whole, the data does not tell us much. The leading work is that of Thomas Marshall, who has associated the results of 139 decisions in fully argued Court cases to nationwide polls on those cases. Of that number, about 55% were consistent with the will of the majority as revealed by the poll.(12) This percentage is hardly awe-inspiring, and may, in fact, just as easily be used to demonstrate a lack of public support for the Court's decisions. There are also several other problems attendant to such associations: only a tiny fraction of Court decisions have been studied, and the polling questions themselves, of necessity, often oversimplify the holding of a case.(13) Moreover, the vast majority of Court decisions escape the scrutiny of public opinion polls entirely.

It may be true that the polls tell us that the Court possesses relatively high levels of public prestige and support, especially as compared with other American institutions.(14) One recent study found a high correlation over the past three decades between the ideological mood of the public and all Court decisions, when the latter are categorized as either liberal or conservative.(15) But here, too, the evidence is equivocal. The Court's public support has declined during periods, such as the Warren era, when the Court rendered controversial decisions, some of which engendered significant public opposition. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Supreme Court, Judicial Review, and the Public: Leadership versus Dialogue
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.