Incivility in Oral and Written Language on the U.S. Supreme Court

• In Event: Judicial Decisions and Legal Doctrine

Abstract

Observers of American politics have noted a pretty substantial decline in civility that has accompanied its increasing partisan polarization. And, as recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings have shown, political battles over the nominations of justices has not been immune to this bitter divide. But has this growing incivility affected how the justices interact with one another? Or has the Court maintained a level of decorum unphased by the external political world. We hypothesize that, as the ideological and partisan divide on the Court has increased over time, the sentiment of written and spoken statements by the justices has changed. We to measure this, we perform a content analysis of separate opinions (i.e., concurrences and dissents) as well as of statements made during oral arguments. We focus on these forms of judicial speech as the justices are less constrained in speaking for themselves, whereas they must maintain a majority when crafting an Opinion of the Court. Our time-series analysis controls for issue area, case salience, Court ideology, and natural Court to isolate the effects of polarization on the language the justices use. This paper will not only contribute to a broader understanding of both judicial behavior and political polarization, but will also expand upon psychological theories of judging.

Authors

• Michael Salamone, Washington State University

• Michael K. Romano, Shenandoah University