The Rights Paradox

How Group Attitudes Shape US Supreme Court Legitimacy

Häftad, Engelska, 2022

Av Michael A. Zilis, Michael A. (University of Kentucky) Zilis

309 kr

Beställningsvara. Skickas inom 10-15 vardagar

Fri frakt för medlemmar vid köp för minst 249 kr.

Finns i fler format (1)

Inbunden

1 309 kr

Skickas inom 10-15 vardagar

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.

Produktinformation

Utgivningsdatum2022-10-06
Mått152 x 229 x 11 mm
Vikt296 g
FormatHäftad
SpråkEngelska
Antal sidor196
FörlagCambridge University Press
ISBN9781108927697

Tillhör följande kategorier

1. Legitimacy and minority rights; 2. The group antipathy theory of supreme court legitimacy; 3. Under siege: gay rights and immigration at the supreme court; 4. Opening the floodgates: big business, citizens united, and evaluations of the court; 5. Experimental tests of the group antipathy model; 6. How citizens use groups to evaluate judicial preferences; 7. Group antipathy and strategic behaviour on the supreme court; 8. Conclusion; References; Cases cited; Index.

'Drawing on a range of literatures, Zilis develops a compelling and original argument: Citizens evaluate the Supreme Court based on the groups they think the Court is supporting. That alone makes his book a great read. But Zilis goes further, assessing his claim against survey and experimental data covering a range of groups. No readers will leave The Rights Paradox without rethinking everything they thought they knew about the Court's legitimacy.' Lee Epstein, Washington University in St. Louis