On the Relationship between Public Opinion and Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

By Calvin, Bryan; Collins, Paul M. et al. | Political Research Quarterly, December 2011 | Go to article overview

On the Relationship between Public Opinion and Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals


Calvin, Bryan, Collins, Paul M., Eshbaugh-Soha, Matthew, Political Research Quarterly


Abstract

The authors explore whether the federal courts act as countermajoritarian institutions by investigating the influence of public mood on decision making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1961 to 2002. The results indicate that public opinion affects courts of appeals decision making indirectly through judicial replacements and institutional constrains from Congress, but the authors fail to uncover evidence that courts of appeals judges respond directly to changes in public opinion. They conclude that, absent membership turnover in the circuit or in Congress, the courts of appeals are not responsive to the will of the public.

Keywords

judicial decision making, countermajoritarian, democratic, institutional visibility, public mood

Federal judges occupy a peculiar position in the American political system. Like members of Congress and the president, they have substantial policy-making powers. However, unlike their legislative and executive counterparts, they are not subject to popular will through elections. The electoral independence of the federal courts, coupled with their ability to make public policy (inclusive of the use of judicial review), has long fanned the flames of the debate regarding the proper role of the federal judiciary in the American polity. Scholars are acutely aware of the tension between judges' roles as policy makers and the actuality that federal judges are unelected, leading them to question whether the federal courts operate as countermajoritarian institutions or follow the mood of the public (e.g., Bickel 1962; Dahl 1957; Flemming and Wood 1997; Friedman 2009; Giles, Blackstone, and Vining 2008; Marshall 2008; McGuire and Stimson 2004; Mishler and Sheehan 1993; Norpoth and Segal 1994).

Indeed, the fear that a relatively small number of unelected judges can-and do-substitute their own will for that of duly elected public officials has motivated some to advocate for changes in federal judicial selection, ranging from setting term limits for federal judges (e.g., Calabresi and Lindgren 2006) to calling for their direct election (e.g., Clark 1903). While there are significant normative concerns stemming from the role of federal judges as unelected policy makers (e.g., Comiskey 2009; Friedman 2009), our understanding of the countermajoritarian nature of the federal courts can also be furthered through the empirical analysis of the relationship between public opinion and judicial decision making.1 Simply put, if federal judges are responsive to changes in public opinion, this might mitigate the significance of the fact that these actors are unelected (e.g., Comiskey 2009; Marshall 2008). The purpose of this research is to contribute to the debate regarding the undemocratic nature of the federal courts by exploring whether public opinion shapes decision making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

An examination of the relationship between public opinion and the decisions courts of appeals judges make is significant for a number of reasons. First, this research contributes to our understanding of the countermajoritarian nature of the federal courts. Although there is a substantial literature devoted to this paradigm, it almost exclusively focuses on the role of the U.S. Supreme Court (but see, e.g., Cook 1977; Giles and Walker 1975; Kritzer 1979; Manning and Carp 2005; Manning, Kuersten, and Carp 2001; Massie 2002; Peltason 1971). While the U.S. Supreme Court is a tremendously consequential venue, the almost exclusive focus on this institution threatens the generalizability of our understanding of the possible influence of public opinion on judicial decision making. Second, this research is important in that it furthers our understanding of decision making on the courts of appeals. Though the study of these courts has flourished recently (e.g., Benesh 2002; Hettinger, Lindquist, and Martinek 2006; Klein 2002; Songer, Sheehan, and Haire 2000), there are still a host of questions regarding these bodies that demand attention, including these courts' responsiveness to public opinion (Benesh 2002, 141n63). …

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

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

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.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

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 article

On the Relationship between Public Opinion and Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
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.
    Sign up now 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.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.