Partisan sorting, fatalism, and Supreme Court legitimacy

Abstract This paper studies the contours of Supreme Court legitimacy. First, we construct a data set of surveys from 2012 to 2024 to show that diffuse support now diverges among partisans; we then analyze an original, six‐wave panel survey that reveals the stability of this partisan sorting. Second, we unpack the direct and indirect effects of partisanship on legitimacy: Democrats are more cynical about the Court, disapprove of its outputs, and view obedience to the law differently than Republicans, which contributes to the profound partisan gap in legitimacy. Finally, we reevaluate the relationship between specific and diffuse support by introducing a new measure of specific support, which shows that “fatalistic” views of the Supreme Court contribute to low levels of legitimacy. Today, Democrats’ pessimism toward the Court has eliminated decades of positivity and goodwill. This fatalistic sorting among large swaths of the public implies that the Court's authority now rests on weak and polarized foundations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Political Science
Published
2025-04-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12972
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
31.97
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Partisan sorting, fatalism, and Supreme Court legitimacy

Matthew P. Hitt, Nicholas T. Davis
2 citations
American Journal of Political Science
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
31.97
article

Partisan sorting, fatalism, and Supreme Court legitimacy

Matthew P. Hitt, Nicholas T. Davis
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract This paper studies the contours of Supreme Court legitimacy. First, we construct a data set of surveys from 2012 to 2024 to show that diffuse support now diverges among partisans; we then analyze an original, six‐wave panel survey that reveals the stability of this partisan sorting. Second, we unpack the direct and indirect effects of partisanship on legitimacy: Democrats are more cynical about the Court, disapprove of its outputs, and view obedience to the law differently than Republicans, which contributes to the profound partisan gap in legitimacy. Finally, we reevaluate the relationship between specific and diffuse support by introducing a new measure of specific support, which shows that “fatalistic” views of the Supreme Court contribute to low levels of legitimacy. Today, Democrats’ pessimism toward the Court has eliminated decades of positivity and goodwill. This fatalistic sorting among large swaths of the public implies that the Court's authority now rests on weak and polarized foundations.

American Journal of Political ScienceVol. 70(1)
University of Alabama (US), Colorado State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
31.97
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Partisan sorting, fatalism, and Supreme Court legitimacy — Matthew P. Hitt, Nicholas T. Davis · American Journal of Political Science (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS