Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?
Do you wish to request the book?
Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?
2015
Overview
Bartels and Johnston have recently presented evidence suggesting that the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court is grounded in the ideological preferences and perceptions of the American people. In addition, they offer experimental data purporting to show that dissatisfaction with a single Court decision substantially diminishes the institution's legitimacy. These findings strongly break with earlier research on the Court's institutional support, as the authors recognize. The theoretical implications of their findings are profound. If the authors are correct that legitimacy is strongly dependent upon satisfying the policy preferences and ideological predilections of the American people, the essence of legitimacy is fundamentally transformed. Consequently, we reinvestigate the relationships among ideology, performance satisfaction, and Court legitimacy, unearthing empirical findings that diverge markedly from theirs. We conclude with some thoughts about how the Court's \"countermajoritarian dilemma\" can be reconceptualized and recalculated, once more drawing conclusions sharply at odds with those of Bartels and Johnston.
