|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
The US Supreme Court is the chief institution responsible for
guarding minority rights and equality under the law, yet, in order
to function authoritatively, the Court depends on a majority of
Americans to accept its legitimacy and on policymakers to enforce
its rulings. The Rights Paradox confronts this tension, offering a
careful conceptualization and theory of judicial legitimacy that
emphasizes its connection to social groups. Zilis demonstrates that
attitudes toward minorities and other groups are pivotal for
shaping popular support for the Court, with the Court losing
support when it rules in favor of unpopular groups. Moreover,
justices are aware of these dynamics and strategically moderate
their decisions when concerned about the Court's legitimacy.
Drawing on survey and experimental evidence, as well as analysis of
Court decision-making across many recent high-profile cases, Zilis
examines the implications for 'equal justice under the law' in an
era of heightened polarization and conflict.
The US Supreme Court is the chief institution responsible for
guarding minority rights and equality under the law, yet, in order
to function authoritatively, the Court depends on a majority of
Americans to accept its legitimacy and on policymakers to enforce
its rulings. The Rights Paradox confronts this tension, offering a
careful conceptualization and theory of judicial legitimacy that
emphasizes its connection to social groups. Zilis demonstrates that
attitudes toward minorities and other groups are pivotal for
shaping popular support for the Court, with the Court losing
support when it rules in favor of unpopular groups. Moreover,
justices are aware of these dynamics and strategically moderate
their decisions when concerned about the Court's legitimacy.
Drawing on survey and experimental evidence, as well as analysis of
Court decision-making across many recent high-profile cases, Zilis
examines the implications for 'equal justice under the law' in an
era of heightened polarization and conflict.
When the U.S. Supreme Court announces a decision, reporters
simplify and dramatize the complex legal issues by highlighting
dissenting opinions and thus emphasizing conflict among the
justices themselves. This often sensationalistic coverage fosters
public controversy over specific rulings, despite polls which show
that Americans strongly believe in the Court's legitimacy as an
institution. In The Limits of Legitimacy, Michael A. Zilis
illuminates this link between case law and public opinion. Drawing
on a diverse array of sources and methods, he employs case studies
of eminent domain decisions, analysis of survey data and media
reporting, an experiment to test how volunteers respond to media
messages, and finally the natural experiment of the controversy
over the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Zilis
finds, first, that the media tends not to quote from majority
opinions. However, the greater the division over a particular
ruling among the justices themselves, the greater the likelihood
that the media will criticize that ruling, characterize it as
activist, and employ inflammatory rhetoric. Zilis then demonstrates
that the media's portrayal of a decision, as much as the substance
of the decision itself, influences citizens' reactions to and
acceptance of it. This meticulously constructed study and its
persuasively argued conclusion advance the understanding of the
media, judicial politics, political institutions, and political
behavior.
When the U.S. Supreme Court announces a decision, reporters
simplify and dramatize the complex legal issues by highlighting
dissenting opinions and thus emphasizing conflict among the
justices themselves. This often sensationalistic coverage fosters
public controversy over specific rulings, despite polls which show
that Americans strongly believe in the Court's legitimacy as an
institution. In The Limits of Legitimacy, Michael A. Zilis
illuminates this link between case law and public opinion. Drawing
on a diverse array of sources and methods, he employs case studies
of eminent domain decisions, analysis of survey data and media
reporting, an experiment to test how volunteers respond to media
messages, and finally the natural experiment of the controversy
over the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Zilis
finds, first, that the media tends not to quote from majority
opinions. However, the greater the division over a particular
ruling among the justices themselves, the greater the likelihood
that the media will criticize that ruling, characterize it as
activist, and employ inflammatory rhetoric. Zilis then demonstrates
that the media's portrayal of a decision, as much as the substance
of the decision itself, influences citizens' reactions to and
acceptance of it. This meticulously constructed study and its
persuasively argued conclusion advance the understanding of the
media, judicial politics, political institutions, and political
behavior.
|
|