Book contents
- The Rights Paradox
- The Rights Paradox
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Table of Cases
- 1 Legitimacy and Minority Rights
- 2 The Group Antipathy Theory of Supreme Court Legitimacy
- 3 Under Siege
- 4 Opening the Floodgates
- 5 Experimental Tests of the Group Antipathy Model
- 6 How Citizens Use Groups to Evaluate Judicial Preferences
- 7 Group Antipathy and Strategic Behavior on the Supreme Court
- 8 Conclusion
- Appendix
- References
- Index
7 - Group Antipathy and Strategic Behavior on the Supreme Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 March 2021
- The Rights Paradox
- The Rights Paradox
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Table of Cases
- 1 Legitimacy and Minority Rights
- 2 The Group Antipathy Theory of Supreme Court Legitimacy
- 3 Under Siege
- 4 Opening the Floodgates
- 5 Experimental Tests of the Group Antipathy Model
- 6 How Citizens Use Groups to Evaluate Judicial Preferences
- 7 Group Antipathy and Strategic Behavior on the Supreme Court
- 8 Conclusion
- Appendix
- References
- Index
Summary
The central insight of the group antipathy model is that Americans assess the Supreme Court based on their feelings toward the social groups involved in a controversy. When citizens perceive the judiciary to favor a disliked group, this weakens their loyalty toward the institution. As this occurs, support for Court curbing rises. More citizens venture that the Court should be placed under popular control. They believe it should lose jurisdiction over controversial matters. A small number, even, endorse doing away with the Court altogether. Returning to Alexander Bickel’s famous formulation, these attitudes bring into stark relief the counter-majoritarian dilemma. Justices of the modern Court risk their authority if they protect unpopular segments in society too vigorously.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Rights ParadoxHow Group Attitudes Shape US Supreme Court Legitimacy, pp. 108 - 125Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021