• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

制度混合和政策驱动的推理结构塑造了公众对最高法院的评价。

Institutional hybridity and policy-motivated reasoning structure public evaluations of the Supreme Court.

机构信息

Department of Political Science, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, United States of America.

Department of Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 22;18(11):e0294525. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294525. eCollection 2023.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0294525
PMID:37992008
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10664892/
Abstract

How does the public assess the Supreme Court and its work? Using data from three surveys conducted over a span of ten years, we show that individuals' policy preferences drive evaluations of the Court and its willingness to reform the Court. We find strong evidence that the Court's hybrid legal-political nature enables a unique form of policy-motivated reasoning: respondents who agree with Court outputs view the Court and its work as more "legal" in nature, while those who disagree view both as more "political." Our findings stand in contrast to longstanding views in the literature that the public views the Court as a fundamentally different sort of institution that stands largely separate from politics. The fact that policy attitudes powerfully inform the public's assessment of the Court has crucial implications for the ongoing debates over Supreme Court power.

摘要

公众如何评价最高法院及其工作？本文利用十年间进行的三次调查的数据，结果表明，个人的政策偏好会影响他们对最高法院的评价以及对最高法院改革的意愿。我们有强有力的证据表明，最高法院的混合法律-政治性质使其能够进行一种独特的、基于政策的推理：与法院判决结果意见一致的受访者认为，法院及其工作本质上更具有“法律性”，而那些意见相左的受访者则认为两者都更具“政治性”。我们的研究结果与文献中长期存在的观点形成鲜明对比，即公众认为最高法院是一种截然不同的机构，在很大程度上独立于政治。政策态度有力地影响公众对法院的评估这一事实，对围绕最高法院权力展开的持续辩论具有至关重要的影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/f368ee25407d/pone.0294525.g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/96c389c995aa/pone.0294525.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/94de06f9cedd/pone.0294525.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/acc087b1bcde/pone.0294525.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/076f36b5db4d/pone.0294525.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/b689136b6638/pone.0294525.g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/6fb7eef0712c/pone.0294525.g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/f368ee25407d/pone.0294525.g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/96c389c995aa/pone.0294525.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/94de06f9cedd/pone.0294525.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/acc087b1bcde/pone.0294525.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/076f36b5db4d/pone.0294525.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/b689136b6638/pone.0294525.g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/6fb7eef0712c/pone.0294525.g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89af/10664892/f368ee25407d/pone.0294525.g007.jpg

相似文献

1
Institutional hybridity and policy-motivated reasoning structure public evaluations of the Supreme Court.制度混合和政策驱动的推理结构塑造了公众对最高法院的评价。
PLoS One. 2023 Nov 22;18(11):e0294525. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294525. eCollection 2023.
2
A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public.一项长达十年的纵向调查显示，如今最高法院比公众保守得多。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Jun 14;119(24):e2120284119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2120284119. Epub 2022 Jun 6.
3
Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post- world.最高法院是否已成为另一个政治分支？在后世界中公众对法院认可和合法性的看法。
Sci Adv. 2024 Mar 8;10(10):eadk9590. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adk9590.
4
Abortion and the law: the impact on hospital policy of the Roe and Doe decisions.堕胎与法律：罗诉韦德案和多伊诉博尔顿案的判决对医院政策的影响
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1976 Fall;1(3):319-37. doi: 10.1215/03616878-1-3-319.
5
A neo-institutional analysis of the hidden interaction between the Israeli Supreme Court and the Ministry of Finance: the right to healthcare services.对以色列最高法院与财政部之间隐藏互动的新制度分析：医疗服务权
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2018 Nov 27;7(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s13584-018-0261-9.
6
Citizens United, public health, and democracy: the Supreme Court ruling, its implications, and proposed action.公民联合诉联邦选举委员会案、公共卫生与民主：最高法院的裁决、其影响与拟议行动
Am J Public Health. 2011 Jul;101(7):1172-9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300043. Epub 2011 Mar 18.
7
Judicial Power and Influence on Population Health.司法权对人口健康的影响。
Milbank Q. 2023 Apr;101(S1):700-733. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12606.
8
The Milwaukee story: a public hospital's resistance to the Supreme Court abortion rulings.密尔沃基的故事：一家公立医院对最高法院堕胎裁决的抵制。
Fam Plann Popul Rep. 1975 Aug;4(4):68-72.
9
Preserving diversity in healthcare after the US Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling.美国最高法院平权行动裁决后医疗保健领域的多样性保护
BMJ. 2023 Jul 21;382:1691. doi: 10.1136/bmj.p1691.
10
The Constitution and the Public's Health: The Consequences of the US Supreme Court's Medicaid Decision in .《宪法与公众健康：美国最高法院关于医疗补助计划裁决的后果》
Public Health Rep. 2016 Nov;131(6):844-846. doi: 10.1177/0033354916670870. Epub 2016 Oct 13.

本文引用的文献

1
A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public.一项长达十年的纵向调查显示，如今最高法院比公众保守得多。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Jun 14;119(24):e2120284119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2120284119. Epub 2022 Jun 6.
2
The case for motivated reasoning.动机性推理的情况。
Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):480-98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.