Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:12:33.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jeremiad or Weapon of Words?

The Power of Emotive Language in Supreme Court Dissents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Amanda C. Bryan  and
Eve M. Ringsmuth
Amanda C. Bryan*
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago
Eve M. Ringsmuth
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
*
Contact the corresponding author, Amanda C. Bryan, at [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unable to directly control the policy articulated by the Supreme Court, dissenting justices are faced with the challenge of finding alternative ways to pursue their policy goals. We argue that one strategy available to them is to use their power over the language of a dissenting opinion to increase the media attention paid to a case. Our results show that cases with negative dissents attract more media coverage, which creates a variety of mechanisms through which a dissenter’s policy preferences could be realized, such as inducing Congress to take action, influencing public debate on the issue, and provoking further litigation. This finding ultimately suggests that dissenters, while disadvantaged, are not powerless to affect legal policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , Spring 2016 , pp. 159 - 185
Copyright
© 2016 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans. We thank Ryan Black for generously sharing his data, Justin Wedeking for his assistance with LIWC, Doug Rice and Tom Clark for providing advice on the use of their measure, and Marcus Hendershot, the editor, and the anonymous reviewers for feedback on this project.

References

Alpers, G. W., A. J. Winzelberg, C. Classen, H. Roberts, P. Dev, and C. Koopman. 2005. “Evaluation of Computerized Text Analysis in an Internet Breast Cancer Support Group.” Computers and Human Behavior 21:361–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A. 2004. “The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda.” Journal of Politics 66 (3): 755–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Robert. 2007. “Over Ginsburg’s Dissent, Court Limits Bias Suits.” Washington Post, May 30.Google Scholar
Barnes, Robert. 2014. “Sotomayor Accuses Colleagues of Trying to ‘Wish Away’ Racial Inequality.” Washington Post, April 22.Google Scholar
Bell, Courtney M., Phillip M. McCarthy, and Danielle S. McNamara. n.d. “Variations in Language Use across Biological versus Sociological Theories.” Manuscript, Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Maron W. Sorenson, and Timothy R. Johnson. 2013. “Toward an Actor-Based Measure of Supreme Court Case Salience: Information-Seeking and Engagement during Oral Arguments.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (4): 804–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, William J. Jr., 1986. “In Defense of Dissents.” Hastings Law Journal 37:427–38.Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2015. “Op-Ed: Justice Scalia: Why He’s a Bad Influence.” Los Angeles Times, July 14.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S., Jeffrey R. Lax, and Douglas R. Rice. 2015. “Measuring the Political Salience of Supreme Court Cases.” Journal of Law and Courts 3 (1): 37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Todd A., and Christopher A. Cooper. 2012. “Case Salience and Media Coverage of Supreme Court Decisions: Toward a New Measure.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 396–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., and Justin P. Wedeking. 2014. “The (Dis)Advantage of Certainty: The Importance of Certainty in Language.” Law and Society Review 48 (1): 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, Jill, and Elizabeth Lambert. 2010. “Dissents from the Bench: A Compilation of Oral Dissents by U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” Law Library Journal 102 (1): 7–37.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Roy B., John Bohte, and B. Dan Wood. 1997. “One Voice among Many: The Supreme Court’s Influence on Attentiveness to Issues in the United States, 1947–1992.” American Journal of Political Science 41:1224–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Liane C. Kosaki. 1989. “Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion.” American Political Science Review 83 (3): 751–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, Dan. 2015. “Antonin Scalia Rips Fellow Justices in Sarcastic Dissent on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling: ‘Ask the Nearest Hippie.’” New York Daily News, June 26.Google Scholar
Frimera, Jeremy A., Karl Aquinob, Jochen E. Gebauer, Luke (Lei) Zhu, and Harrison Oakes. 2015. “A Decline in Prosocial Language Helps Explain Public Disapproval of the US Congress.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (21): 6591–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gans, Herbert. 1980. Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. 1995. “Communicating and Commenting on the Court’s Work.” Georgetown Law Review 83:2119–28.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. 2010. “The Role of Dissenting Opinions.” Minnesota Law Review 95 (1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, Zachary A. 2015. “Scalia Burns the Supreme Court as a Group of ‘Unrepresentative’ Elitists in Gay Marriage Ruling.” Washington Post, June 26.Google Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda. 2007. “In Dissent, Ginsburg Finds Her Voice at Supreme Court.” New York Times, May 31.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori, and Lawrence Baum. 1999. “Inviting Congressional Action: A Study of Supreme Court Motivations in Statutory Interpretation.” American Journal of Political Science 43:162–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1976. “The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models.” Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5:475–92.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Ryan C. Black, and Eve M. Ringsmuth. 2009. “Hear Me Roar: What Provokes Supreme Court Justices to Dissent from the Bench?” Minnesota Law Review 93 (5): 1560–81.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., and Andrew D. Martin. 1998. “The Public’s Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions.” American Political Science Review 92 (2): 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, J. H., R. M. Tobin, A. E. Massey, and J. A. Anderson. 2007. “Measuring Emotional Expression with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC).” American Journal of Psychology 120:263–86.Google ScholarPubMed
Larson, Stephanie Greco. 1985. “How the New York Times Covered Discrimination Cases.” Journalism Quarterly 62 (Winter): 894–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liptak, Adam. 2010. “No Vote-Trading Here.” New York Times, May 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/weekinreview/16liptak.html.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam. 2014. “Court Backs Michigan on Affirmative Action.” New York Times, April 22. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/supreme-court-michigan-affirmative-action-ban.html.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2003. “Salience or Politics: New York Times Coverage of the Supreme Court.” Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederhoffer, Kate G., and James W. Pennebaker. 2009. “Sharing One’s Story: On the Benefits of Writing or Talking about Emotional Experience.” In Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, ed. C. R. Snyder and Shane J. Lopez, 621–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, James W., and Laura A. King. 1999. “Linguistic Styles: Language Use as an Individual Difference.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77:1296–1312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, Steven A. 1981. “Dissent in American Courts.” Journal of Politics 43 (2): 412–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalia, Antonin S. 1994. “The Dissenting Opinion.” Journal of Supreme Court History 1994:33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sill, Kaitlyn L., Emily T. Metzgar, and Stella M. Rouse. 2013. “Media Coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court: How Do Journalists Assess the Importance of Court Decisions?” Political Communication 30:58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slotnick, Elliot E., and Jennifer A. Segal. 1998. Television News and the Supreme Court: All the News That’s Fit to Air? New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straubhaar, Joseph, Robert LaRose, and Lucinda Davenport. 2009. Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture and Technology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Yla R., and James W. Pennebaker. 2010. “The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29 (1): 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Stuart. 1986. “High Court, 5–4, Says States Have the Right to Outlaw Private Homosexual Acts; Division Is Bitter.” New York Times, June 30.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J., James F. Spriggs II, and Forrest Maltzman. 1999. “The Politics of Dissents and Concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Politics Quarterly 27 (4): 488–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whissell, Cynthia. 2009. “Using the Revised Dictionary of Affect in Language to Quantify the Emotional Undertones of Samples of Natural Language.” Psychological Reports 105:509–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed