Public Reactions to Legal, Principled, and Partisan Decision-Making in Supreme Courts
The purpose of the study is to replicate on Norwegian respondents a survey experiment fielded among a national representative sample of the Portuguese population. The survey experiment examines how the presentation of different framings concerning the determinants of judicial decisions affect the pu...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Open Science Framework
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/5ahm2 https://osf.io/5ahm2/ |
| Summary: | The purpose of the study is to replicate on Norwegian respondents a survey experiment fielded among a national representative sample of the Portuguese population. The survey experiment examines how the presentation of different framings concerning the determinants of judicial decisions affect the public's propensity to accept those decisions, above and beyond citizens' agreement with the decisional outcome itself. Subjects will be presented with three alternative frames about a hypothetical decision in constitutional review of a government enacted policy by a court: "legalistic" - decision results from examination of the extent to which the reviewed decision respects legal/constitutional commands and legal precedent; "principled" - decision results from examination of the extent to which reviewed decision balance general constitutional principles; "partisan" - decision results from partisan balance of power within the court. The study poses that presentation of these frames affects perception of procedural fairness of judicial decision-making and public acceptance of court rulings. The specific context is of a hypothetical decision of the Norwegian Supreme Court in constitutional review of a government enacted policy to continue search for oil in the Barents Sea. The experiment is conducted in a nationally representative survey of the Norwegian adult population. |
|---|