Out-Partisans in Robes: How Affective Polarization Impacts Supreme Court Support

• In Event: Poster Session: Political Psychology

Abstract

Since the 1970s, Democrats and Republicans have viewed each other with increasing animosity. A large literature has proliferated on its non-political consequences, including increased willingness to discriminate and incivility against out-partisans. However, little is known about its political consequences, namely confidence in institutions. The work that has been done argues that animus towards out-partisans polarizes confidence based on which party controls the institution, but this theory implies that confidence in non-partisan institutions like the Supreme Court should not be affected. But is this really the case? Other work on confidence in institutions contends with this implication. It is not partisan control itself that affects confidence in institutions, but whether these institutions are functioning at normatively good standards. For the Supreme Court in particular, perceptions that the Court is politicized leave it susceptible to losing support. Similar to how strong partisans perceive relatively balanced media coverage as biased in its procedures, an analogous process may occur for those who see the Supreme Court as a political body. Among particularly polarized partisans, the relative ideological balance by which the Court makes its decisions leads to a perception that the Court is operating in a way that gives the opposing party the upper hand. Using a combination of survey and experimental evidence, I find that as people become more affectively polarized, both short-term and long-term support for the Court decrease. Furthermore, the more people perceive the Court as a political body, the more animus towards out-partisans has an impact on Court support. This work suggests that affective polarization does not only have negative consequences for partisan institutions, but non-partisan ones as well.

Author

• Joseph Phillips, Pennsylvania State University