Framing Support for the Supreme Court in the Aftermath of ...

[Pages:51]Framing Supportfor the Supreme Court in the Aftermath of Bush v. Gore

Stephen P. Nicholson RobertM. Howard

GeorgiaState University

Public supportfor political actorsandinstitutionsdependson the framesemphasizedin elite debate, especially following a political controversy.In the aftermathof Bush v. Gore, the SupremeCourt made itself the object of political controversybecause it effectively endedthe 2000 presidentialelection. Opponentsof the decision framedthe SupremeCourtruling as partisanand "stealingthe election,"while supportersframedit as a principledvote based on legal considerations.Using survey data, we examine how framingthe controversyin these terms shapedthe Court'spublic support.In so doing, we examinethe distinctionbetweenspecificsupport(e.g., confidencein officeholders)and diffusesupport(e.g., institutionallegitimacy).We find that framingthe decision in terms of partisan decision makinginfluencesspecific support,but it does not affect diffuse support.However,framing the justices' motives in terms of ending the election, a specific consequence of the decision, reduces diffuse support.

Introduction

For an institutionaccustomedto avoidingpublic scrutiny,the SupremeCourt had an unusualglarecast on it by the 2000 presidentialelection. InBushv. Gore, the SupremeCourteffectively endedVice PresidentAl Gore'slegal challengeto the outcomein Floridaandthusconcludeda highly contentiouspresidentialrace thathad captivatedan anxious nationfor six long weeks. The falloutwas immediate.Democratsaccusedthe Courtof engaging in partisanpolitics andhanding the election to RepublicanpresidentialcandidateGeorgeW.Bush. Republicans, on the otherhand,spoke of the Court'scouragein following the rule of law (and

We thankJenniferBrustrom,James Druckman,David Nixon, ChristineRoch, ShannonSmithey, andcolloquiaparticipantsat the Departmentof PoliticalScience at GeorgiaStateUniversityfor their helpful commentsand suggestions.This projectwould not havebeen possible withoutthe supportof Gary Henry and CharlotteSteeh of the Applied Research Center at Georgia State University.An earlierversion of this paperwas presentedat a meeting of the SouthernPolitical Science Association, Atlanta,in 2001.

THEJOURNALOF POLITICSV, ol.65, No. 3, August2003, Pp. 676-695 ? 2003 SouthernPoliticalScience Association

FramingSupportfor the SupremeCourtin the Aftermath

677

the Constitution)amidst greatpressure.Not surprisingly,the Courtreceived an

extraordinaryamountof media coverage-journalists, politicians, spin doctors, academics,andlegal analystshadmuchto say aboutthe Court'smotives.All this discussion centered on a long-standingdebate aboutjudicial decision making: does the SupremeCourtmake decisions based on the Constitutionand law, or

does it make decisions on the basis of politics and policy preferences? In the aftermathof Bush v. Gore, the answer to this question involves the

Court'spolitical legitimacy.If the publicperceivedthe decision as biased or partisan,the decisionmightunderminethe legitimacyof the Court.Thejustification behind this reasoning is simple: Courts are supposed to decide cases based on the law, not on policy preferences.Yet, this belief was challengedby the public debate surroundingBush v. Gore. Indeed,Vice PresidentAl Gore signaled the publicthatpolitics was involvedin his concession speechby acceptingthe Court's decision as finalwhile at the same time disagreeingwith it. It was likely a desire to dispel the perception of policy preference judicial decision making that promptedboth Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquistto comment, soon afterBush v. Gore, abouthow theirdecisions were alwayspremisedon law and

thatpolitical considerationsneverenteredinto theirdecision making(Greenhouse

2000; Lewis 2000).

Publicdebatehas importantimplicationsformass attitudes(Zaller1992), especially when debate concerns the legitimacy of political actors and institutions. Although scholars know much about how citizens' attitudes and preferences

shape supportfor the Court,they know less abouthow public debatesof Court decisions affect support.The case of Bush v. Gorepresentsan exceptionalopportunity to examine howframing the Court'smotives affects its public standing. Framingis the process whereby elites, news media, or other actors define the essence of a debate or controversyby highlighting specific considerationsor aspects of an issue (see Druckman2001b for a review). Studies of framingor

framingeffects concernissueframing,the mannerin which alternativedepictions of an issue affect supportfor public policies. With few exceptions (see Iyengar 1991), scholarsknow little aboutwhatwe referto as actor or institutionframing,

the mannerin which alternativeinterpretationsor depictions of political actors (e.g., motives, behavior,effectiveness)affect public approvalor supportof political actors and institutions.Here, we look at whetheralternativeframesprevalent in elite discourse about the Bush v. Gore decision-law, politics, and the election-shaped publicsupportforthe Court.In so doing, we examinethe depth to which framingmattersin shapingattitudestowardthe Courtby examiningthe importantdistinctionbetweenspecificsupport(e.g., supportfor thejustices) and diffusesupport(e.g., supportfor the political institution).

PublicSupportforthe SupremeCourt

Whetheror not the SupremeCourt'sactions andpolitical circumstancesinfluence the Court'spublic supportis somethingof a puzzle. Some find thatevalua-

678

StephenP Nicholson and RobertM. Howard

tions of the Courtarerelativelyimperviousto political circumstancesand Court actions (Caldeiraand Gibson 1992). The "cultof the robe"(Frank1963) or the

widely held perceptionthatthe Courtis "abovepolitics"(Jarosand Roper 1980) help insulatethe Courtfromthe typeof politicalcriticismthatroutinelysurrounds the otherbranchesof government(see HibbingandTheiss-Morse 1995). Others find that the Court'sactions and political circumstancesaffect supportfor the Court(AdamanyandGrossman1983;Caldeira1986;FranklinandKosaki 1989; Hoekstra 2000; Jaros and Roper 1980; Mondak 1991; Mondak and Smithey

1997).

One resolution to this puzzle concerns whether citizens are queried about "diffuse"or "specific"support(Easton 1965). Specific supportinvolves citizens' attitudestowardofficials andpolicies, anddiffuse supportimplies supportfor an institution.Thus, specific supportmeasurespublic attitudestowardthe Supreme Courtjustices while diffuse supportmeasuresthe public'ssupportfor the legitimacy of the Courtapartfromits membership.Researchon public supportfor the SupremeCourtfollows this distinction.For instance,Caldeira(1986) finds that political events andjudicial actions affect evaluationsof the justices, a type of specific support.In laterresearch,Caldeiraand Gibson (1992) find thatjudicial actionshaveno effect on diffusesupport.Diffuse support,theyfind,is theproduct of long-standingpolitical values (e.g., supportfor democraticnorms).Although some questionwhetherthetwo conceptscanbe empiricallydisentangled(Mishler and Rose 1997), we agree with Caldeiraand Gibson (1992) that such a distinction is theoreticallyand empiricallyfeasible. Furthermore,researchon trust in governmentsupportsthe notion thatcitizens differentiatesupportfor the regime and officeholders(e.g., Citrin1974; HibbingandTheiss-Morse 1995).

The distinctionbetween diffuse and specific supportis criticalto understanding public approvalof the SupremeCourt,especially in the aftermathof Bush v. Gore. In many instances, the Court's controversial decisions affect specific

support(e.g., confidencein thejustices) but not diffuse support(e.g., legitimacy of the institution).Yet, in this case, the Courtwas the pivotal actor in a highly salient political controversy.Furthermore,the enormous implications of the decision-control of the nation'shighestelected office-made the Court'srole in the election a topic of manynews storiesandtalk shows. Given all this attention, we findBush v. Gore an especially good opportunityto test whetherpublic attitudestowardhighly controversialSupremeCourtdecisions affectdiffusesupport, particularlythe way the matteris framedto the public.

FramingSupport

Studiesof public opinionandthe Courtestablishthatpolitical predispositions andsocial characteristicsaffectattitudestowardthe Court.Forexample,religious affiliation (Franklin and Kosaki 1989), commitment to democratic norms (Caldeiraand Gibson 1992), feelings towardthe nationalgovernment(Murphy andTanenhaus1968), andpartisanship(AdamanyandGrossman1983) affectthe

FramingSupportfor the SupremeCourtin the Aftermath

679

Court'spublic support.However, questions about the "ThirdBranch"remain unanswered.Thatis, althoughscholarsknow much abouthow political attitudes shape opinion towardthe Court,they know little abouthow the specific considerationsvoiced in public debates about SupremeCourtdecisions-the framing of information-affect public support.

Why should framingmatter?Framing,as mentioned,defines the essence of a controversyand thus helps define the dimensions of a debateby which citizens make politicaljudgments (Alvarez and Brehm 2000; Druckman2001a, 2001b; Gamson 1992; Haider-Markeland Joslyn 2001; Iyengar 1991; Jacoby 2000; Kinderand Sanders1990, 1996; Nelson, Clawson,and Oxley 1997;Nelson and Kinder 1996). To be clear,we are concernedwithframes in communication,the examinationof how frames emphasizedin elite discourse affect political judgment by highlightingcertainaspects of an issue or problem(Druckman2001b). The precise psychological mechanismbehind framingis a matterof scholarly debate.Forsome scholars,framinginfluencesthe accessibilityof particularconsiderations(Iyengar 1991), and for others it shapes the perceived relevanceof informationby makingsome considerationsmoreimportantthanothers(Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley 1997). Since our data-a telephone survey-preclude us from participatingin this discussion, we borrow a broad,inclusive definition: "Framingeffects occur when differentpresentationsof an issue generatedifferent reactionsamong those who are exposed to thatissue" (Jacoby2000, 751).

Studies of issue framingtypically examine supportfor a policy issue across alternativeframes in laboratoryexperimentsand surveys. In an experimenton media framingof social problems,Iyengar(1991) finds that subjectsexposed to storiesabouthomelesspersons(as opposedto faceless statistics)weremorelikely to assignresponsibilityto the individualthanto governmentor society.In a media framingexperimenton political tolerance,Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley (1997) demonstratethat participantswho viewed TV news stories that depicted a Ku Klux Klanrallyas a free speech issue expressedmoretoleranceof the Klanthan participantswho viewed news storiesthatdepictedthe rallyas a matterof public order.

Survey researchusing alterationsin questionwordingto "mimic"public discourse also providessubstantialevidence of framingeffects (KinderandSanders 1990, 1996; Nelson and Kinder 1996). Kinder and Sanders (1990) show that framingcanaffectwhiteattitudestowardaffirmativeactiondependingon whether the issue is framedas an "unfairadvantage"or "reversediscrimination."Nelson andKinder(1996) demonstratethatissue frameslinkedto particulargroupsaffect attitudeson governmentassistanceto the poor, governmentspendingon AIDS, and the preferentialhiring of blacks. Jacoby (2000) finds that Republicanand Democraticissue framesdramaticallyaffect supportfor governmentspendingby varyingthe presentationof the issue.

In sum, framingpolicy issues in differentways affectspublicopinionby high-

lightingcertainconsiderationsandneglectingothers.Yet,few studiesexaminehow

framingthe motives or actions of political actorsaffectspublic supportand con-

680

StephenP Nicholson and RobertM. Howard

fidencein government.The contentof elite discoursemayaffectnot only approval of officeholders,but also the political legitimacyof governmentalinstitutions.

FramingBush v. Gore

The 2000 presidentialelection rivaledthe elections of 1800 and 1876 in creatinguncertaintyoverexactlywho was elected.The dramaof incorrectlymarked ballots, "chads,"improperorderingof candidatenames, and undercountsultimately was resolved by the SupremeCourtin Bush v. Gore (2000). The firstof the two Bush v. Goredecisions came afterthe FloridaSupremeCourt,on remand fromthe U.S. SupremeCourt,ordereda statewiderecountof ballots on December 8, 2000. The following day, the United States Supreme Court, under its discretionarypowerof certiorari,stoppedthe recount,effectivelyendingthe election. The decision fell along ideological, andto some degree,partisanlines. The five most conservativejustices formedthe majority,while the four most liberal justices, includingthe two Democrats(Breyerand Ginsburg)dissented.

The decision was complex, but the public debate surroundingit was less so. We identified three frames: partisan, legal, and election. Opponents claimed that the Courtreachedits decision based on "politics"and "partisanship."For example,theNew Republicsharplycriticizedthe partisanappearanceof the decision, declaringthatthejustices "are-Republicans ... This rulingwas designed to bring about a political outcome, and it is an insult to the intelligence of the Americanpeople to suggest otherwise"(NewRepubliceditors2000). Wereferto this interpretationof the Court'smotives as thepartisan frame.

Supportersof the decision, on the otherhand,stressed"law"and"legalprecedent."Conservativemediaanalystsandpoliticianshadmuchto say aboutthe rule of law, althoughthe justices themselves were likely the most prominentadvocates of this argument.JusticeThomas, soon after the decision, was quoted as saying that the Courtwas never influencedby partisanand political considerations (Greenhouse2000), and Chief Justice Rehnquistaffirmedthe correctness of Thomas'sstatement(Lewis 2000). This interpretationof the Court'smotives in Bush v. Gore we refer to as the legal frame.

Finally,Bush v. Gore was not simply a matterof law versus politics: it effectively endedthe 2000 presidentialelection, and some critics framedthe decision as nothing less than stealing the election. Jesse Jackson, for instance, angrily denouncedthe decision by telling a rally of blacks, union members,and other Democraticloyalists, "theelection was essentiallytakenand stolen"(CNN staff 2000). This interpretationof the controversywe referto as the election frame.

Thus,we havethe framingof the controversy.Formany,the decision was ideological, partisan,andpolitical, or it had severeconsequencesin thatit "stolethe election."Forothers,includingthe statedobservationsof at leastthreeof thejus-

tices who formedthe majoritycoalition, the Courtpremisedthe decision on the

properapplicationof law and rules. Note that we do not examine variationsin

the argumentsmadeby supportersof Bushv. Gore.Althoughwe wouldhaveliked

FramingSupportfor the SupremeCourtin the Aftermath

681

to explorethe variousframeson thatside of the debate,we did not do so because we are interestedin looking at loss of support.

Dataand Methods

The data for this analysis are from the Winter2001 Georgia State Poll, conductedby the Applied ResearchCenterat GeorgiaStateUniversity.'The sample was a telephonesurveyof 782 Georgiaresidents,18 yearsof age andover.2Interviews wereconductedfromJanuary18 throughFebruary20, 2001, startingsome five and one-halfweeks afterBush v. Gore. Georgiais obviously not representative of the nationas a whole, andwe do not wish to replicatethe nationalsurveys alreadyundertakenin this area (see, e.g., Gibson, Caldeira,and Spence 2001; Kritzer2001). For our purposes, broad,nationaldemographicrepresentationis not as importantas the question-wordingmanipulationsembeddedin the survey. After controllingfor alternativeexplanations,we have no reason to expect that Georgiansshould be any more, or less, influencedby framingeffects than citizens in other states.

Having identifiedframes from the Bush v. Gore controversy,we constructed questionsthat"mimic"the majorclaims madeby both sides (KinderandSanders 1990, 1996; Nelson and Kinder 1996) for the studies below.

Study1: GeneralversusSpecificFrames

Figure 1A depicts our intentionsfor study 1. Here, we investigatehow alternative framesmade by opponentsof Bush v. Gore affect diffuse supportfor the SupremeCourt.The partisanframerepresentsa generalcriticismof the Court's decision, andthe election framedenotes a specific outcomeor resultof the decision. We depict the wordingfor each question,with the differenceshighlighted in italics, below.

Partisan Frame

Election Frame

(GeneralAccount of Court'smotives)

Ournext questionconcernsthe U.S. SupremeCourt'srecent involvement in the presidentialelection between Al Gore and GeorgeW.Bush. Some say the powerof the Courtshouldbe

(Specific Account of Court'sMotives)

Ournext questionconcernsthe U.S. SupremeCourt'srecent involvement in the presidentialelection between Al Gore and GeorgeW.Bush. Some say the powerof the Courtshouldbe

'The survey randomlyassigned the differentframes among the three groups.To ensure that any differencesin response were not the result of significantdemographic,ideological, or political difference in these groups, we examined relevantdemographic,ideological, and political profiles for

each group. We found no systematic differences among the three groups for these characteristics. Therefore,since the threegroupsare similaranddo not exhibitany systematicbias, we are confident thatthe questionwordingmanipulationsare responsiblefor the differentresponsesamong groups.

2The cooperationrate for the poll was 41.71%.

682

StephenP Nicholson and RobertM. Howard

reducedbecause its decision on the

presidentialelection was made on the basis of politics andpartisanship. Othersbelieve the Court'spowers shouldremainunchanged,saying that it ruled on the basis of law and legal precedent.Whatdo you think?As far as reducingthe powersof the SupremeCourtis concerned,would you say you stronglyagree with reducingthe Court'spowers, somewhatagree with reducingthe Court'spowers,or hardlyagree with reducingthe Court'spowers?

reducedbecause its decision on the

presidentialelection was made on the basis of wantingto bring the election to an end. Othersbelieve the Court's

powers should remainunchanged, saying that it ruled on the basis of law and legal precedent.Whatdo you think?As far as reducingthe powers of the SupremeCourtis concerned, would you say you stronglyagree with reducingthe Court'spowers, somewhatagree with reducingthe Court'spowers,or hardlyagree with reducingthe Court'spowers?

Despite the apparentsimilaritiesbetweenthe two frames,we expect the specific claim of the election to producea greaterloss of supportthanthe broaderclaim of partisan decision making. Frames depicting a broad or general account of a story or debate may affect political judgments much differentlythan frames depicting concrete or specific accounts (Iyengar 1991; Jacoby 2000). For example, Iyengar(1991) finds thatTV news stories that depict concrete exam-

ples (episodic frames) as opposed to general evidence (thematic frames) significantly influence the way citizens understandsocial problems and assign

responsibilityfor them. Similarly,Jacoby(2000) finds that Republicans'broad, general appeals about limiting government decrease support for government spending while Democrats' specific appeals for programs have the opposite effect. Similarly,we expect the specific claim of the election frame to have a greatereffect thanthe broadclaim of the partisanframe.DepictingBush v. Gore in termsof the election transforms"arelativelyabstractmatterinto a subjectthat they [respondents]can more readilyidentify with"(Chong 1993, 887) since the partisanshipclaim is "relativelyabstract,"sounding like the everydaycriticisms directed at Congress and the presidency. The Court's ending the election imbroglio,on the otherhand,is a specific consequenceor result of the decision and readilyunderstood.This distinctionis also consistentwith Mondak's(1991)

findingthatthe substantiveaspects of SupremeCourtdecisions (consequences) have a significanteffect on the Court'spublic standingbut thatproceduralcon-

cerns such as judicial activism (abstractmatters)do not. Note that we avoided "loading"the election frame for either side. Although

the election framespecificallymentionsthe consequencesor resultsof the Court's decision, it does not say "stealingthe election."An alternativeinterpretationof the election frameadvocatedby supportersof the decision is thatthe Courtdid

the nationa muchneededfavorby "endingthe trauma."JusticeKennedyclaimed thatendingthe election was a positive outcome for the country.Accordingto an AP wire service storydatedSeptember10, 2001, JusticeKennedyvoted with the

FramingSupportfor the SupremeCourtin the Aftermath

683

FIGURE1

Overviewof StudiesInvestigatinPgublicSupporftorthe SupremeCourt

A. TheEffectof PartisanandElectionFrameson Diffuse Support

Frame

PartisanFrame (Generalclaim)

ElectionFrame (Specific claim)

Specific Support

(confidencein

Not Examined Not Examined

SupremeCourt

Public justices)

Support

fSorutpheremDeiffuSsuepporPstahrotisuapnlfdorasmietivelEsyhlecotiuopnlfdorasmiteively

Court (reducingthe

affect diffuse

affect diffuse

powersof the

support(butless support(butmore

SupremeCourt) so thanthe

so thanthe partisan

B. TheEffectsof the PartisanFrameon SpecificandDiffuse Support

Frame

PartisanFrame (Generalclaim)

ElectionFrame (Specific claim)

Public Support for the Supreme Court

Specific Support (confidencein SupremeCourt justices)

Diffuse Support (reducingthe powersof the SupremeCourt)

should positively

affect specific

support(butmore so thandiffuse so it) Partisanframe shouldpositively affectdiffuse

support(butless so thanspecific

Not Examined Not Examined

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download