MetaTOC stay on top of your field, easily

The Chief Justice versus the iconoclast: Popular constitutionalism and support for using “sociological gobbledygook” in legal decisions

,

Law & Society Review

Published online on

Abstract

["Law & Society Review, Volume 55, Issue 4, Page 657-679, December 2021. ", "\nAbstract\nConventional wisdom assumes that the public wants judges that will simply interpret and apply the law as it is written. However, existing evidence shows a substantial portion of the American population supports the doctrine of popular constitutionalism. Using two experiments involving the use of social science in legal decisions, we show that popular constitutionalists evaluate the judiciary using a different set of criteria than legal traditionalists. For legal traditionalists, using social science in legal decisions is perceived as an undesirable nonlegal influence and reduces acceptance of a court decision. For popular constitutionalists, social science is perceived as objective evidence that can be used to understand the practical effects of a decision and increases acceptance. We conclude by discussing the need for more research on popular constitutionalists, as little is known about how this group evaluates the judiciary and interprets its actions.\n"]