Dataset Information

A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public.

ABSTRACT: Significance Leveraging three unique surveys collected over a decade that ask members of the public about the policy issues before the US Supreme Court, we show how the court stands relative to the public. As we demonstrate, the court has, since 2020, become much more conservative than the public and is now more similar to Republicans in its ideological position on key issues. We also find that members of the public update their beliefs about the court's ideology when its composition and rulings change. Even so, many members of the public currently underestimate the court's conservative leaning, which in turn makes them less likely to support making changes to the institution than they would otherwise.

SUBMITTER: Jessee S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9214517 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public.

Jessee Stephen S Malhotra Neil N Sen Maya M

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20220606 24

Has the US Supreme Court become more conservative than the public? We introduce results of three surveys conducted over the course of a decade that ask respondents about their opinions on the policy issues before the court. Using these data, we show that the gap between the court and the public has grown since 2020, with the court moving from being quite close to the average American to a position that is more conservative than the majority of Americans. Second, in contrast to findings showing c ...[more]

PMID: 35666873

Similar Datasets

Project description:The art in law, like medicine, is in its humanity. Nowhere is the humanity in law more poignant than in BC Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield's recent judgment in the legal case aimed at protecting North America's only supervised injection facility (SIF) as a healthcare program: PHS Community Services Society versus the Attorney General of Canada. In order to protect the SIF from politicization, the PHS Community Services Society, the community organization that established and operates the program, along with two people living with addiction and three lawyers working for free, pro bono publico, took the federal government of Canada to court. The courtroom struggle that ensued was akin to a battle between David and Goliath. The judge in the case, Justice Pitfield, ruled in favour of the PHS and gave the Government of Canada one year to bring the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) into compliance with the country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If parliament fails to do so, then the CDSA will evaporate from enforceability and law in June of 2009. Despite the fact that there are roughly twelve million intravenous drug addiction users in the world today, politics and prejudice oards harm reduction are still a barrier to the widespread application of the "best medicine" available for serious addicts. Nowhere is this clearer than in the opposition by conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his faithful servant, federal health minister Tony Clement, towards Vancouver's SIF ("Insite"). The continued angry politicization of addiction will only lead to the tragic loss of life, as addicts are condemned to death from infectious diseases (HIV & hepatitis) and preventable overdoses. In light of the established facts in science, medicine and now law, political opposition to life-saving population health programs (including SIFs) to address the effects of addiction is a kind of implicit capital punishment for the addicted. This commentary examines the socio-political context of the legal case and the major figures that contributed to it. It reviews Justice Pitfield's ruling, a judgment that has brought Canada one step closer to putting a stop to addiction's death row where intravenous drug users are needlessly, for political and ideological reasons alone, forced to face increased risks of death due to AIDS, hepatitis and overdose.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization on June 24, 2022, revealed immediate and distinct differences between states regarding abortion legality. Whether the ruling was associated with population-level changes in seeking information on reproductive health care-related information is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether the US Supreme Court ruling on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization was associated with increased information seeking for reproductive health care access in the states with immediately effective (trigger and pre-Roe) abortion laws vs other states.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional study of nationwide real-time internet search data by state-week from January 1, 2021, through July 16, 2022. Difference-in-difference event study estimates were used to evaluate abortion- and contraception-related internet searches after the Supreme Court draft majority decision was leaked on May 2, 2022, and the final ruling was issued on June 24, 2022, in states immediately affected vs other states. Data analyses were performed from July 18 to January 14, 2022.ExposuresThe Supreme Court's draft majority decision leaked on May 2, 2022, and the final ruling on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization on June 24, 2022. Preexisting state trigger laws and pre-Roe bans that became effective immediately when Roe was overturned by the decision on Dobbs.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of searches per 10 million Google queries in a state-week for terms related to abortion or contraception.ResultsSearches for abortion-related terms increased from 16 302 to 75 746 per 10 million searches per state-week during the weeks before vs after the May 2, 2022, leak of the draft majority decision in states with trigger laws or abortion bans. This was a 42% (95% CI, 24%-59%) higher increase than in states with laws that protect abortion access. Searches for contraception also increased from 56 055 to 82 133 searches per state-week after the ruling in the states with abortion bans, 25% (95% CI, 13%-36%) higher than the increase in states protecting abortion access.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this retrospective cross-sectional study suggest that changes in internet searching for terms related to reproductive health care can capture immediate population-level changes in information-seeking behavior regarding reproductive health care access. These data are critical for shaping health policy discussions.

Dataset Information

A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public.

Publications

A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets