SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Achen, C. H. (1977). Measuring representation: Perils of the correlation coefficient. American Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 805815.
  • Adamany, D., & Grossman, J. B. (1983). Support for the Supreme Court as a national policymaker. Law and Policy Quarterly, 5(4), 405437.
  • Baird, V. A., & Gangl, A. (2006). Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media's framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychology, 27(4), 597614.
  • Bass, A. R., & Firestone, I. J. (1980). Implications of representativeness for generalizability of field and laboratory research findings. American Psychologist, 35, 463464.
  • Biskupic, J. (1997, February 18). Nothing subtle about Scalia, the combative conservative. Washington Post, p. A4.
  • Boeing Company and Consolidated Subsidiaries v. United States . (2003). 123 S. CT. 1099.
  • Brickman, D., & Peterson, D. A. M. (2006). Public opinion reaction to repeated events: Citizen response to multiple Supreme Court abortion decisions. Political Behavior, 28(1), 87112.
  • Caldeira, G. A. (1986). Neither the purse nor the sword: Dynamics of public confidence in the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 12091226.
  • Caldeira, G. A. (1991). Courts and public opinion. In J. B.Gates & C. A.Johnson (Eds.), The American courts: A critical assessment (pp. 303334). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
  • Caldeira, G. A., & Gibson, J. L. (1992). The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 89(2), 356376.
  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  • Cannon, A. (2004). A supreme paper trail. U.S. News and World Report.
  • Casey, G. (1974). The Supreme Court and myth: An empirical investigation. Law and Society Review, 8(3), 385420.
  • Dahl, R. (1957). Decision making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy maker. Journal of Public Law, 6(2), 279295.
  • Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 671686.
  • Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
  • Ewing v. California . (2003). 122 S. Ct. 1435.
  • Franklin, C. H., & Kosaki, L. C. (1989). Republican schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, public opinion, and abortion. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 751771.
  • Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior, 25(2), 119149.
  • Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2003). The Supreme Court and the U.S. presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise? British Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 535556.
  • Grosskopf, A., & Mondak, J. J. (1998). Do attitudes toward specific Supreme Court decisions matter? The impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on public confidence in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 51(3), 633654.
  • Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1995). Congress as public enemy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hoekstra, V. J. (1995). The Supreme Court and opinion change. American Politics Research, 23(1), 109129.
  • Hoekstra, V. J. (2003). Public reaction to Supreme Court decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Johnson, T. R., & Martin, A. D. (1998). The public's conditional response to Supreme Court decisions. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 299309.
  • Kessel, J. H. (1966). Public perceptions of the Supreme Court. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 10(2), 167191.
  • King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2001). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 347361.
  • Lane, C. (2004, June 25). High court backs vice-president. Washington Post, p. A1.
  • Lane, C. (2006a, November 8). All eyes on Kennedy in court debate on abortion. Washington Post, p. A03.
  • Lane, C. (2006b, June 2). Kennedy reigns supreme on court. Washington Post, p. A06.
  • Lavine, H., & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive processing and the functional matching effect in persuasion: The mediating role of subjective perceptions of message quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 580604.
  • Lavine, H., Lodge, M., Polichak, J., & Taber, C. (2002). Explicating the black box through experimentation: Studies of authoritarianism and threat. Political Analysis, 10(4), 343361.
  • Lazarus, E. (1998). Biased chambers. New York: Times Books.
  • Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1963). Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 4556.
  • Mondak, J. J., & Smithey, S. I. (1997). The dynamics of public support for the Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 59(4), 11141142.
  • Monroe, A. D. (1983). American party platforms and public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 27(1), 2742.
  • Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379387.
  • Murphy, W. F., & Tanenhaus, J. (1968). Public opinion and Supreme Court: The Goldwater campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32(1), 3150.
  • Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567583.
  • Nicholson, S. P., & Howard, R. M. (2003). Framing support for the Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore. Journal of Politics, 65(3), 676695.
  • Scheb, J. M., & Lyons, W. (2000). The myth of legality and public evaluation of the Supreme Court. Social Science Quarterly, 81(4), 928940.
  • Slotnick, E. E., & Segal, J. A. (1998). Television news and the Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stone, W. J. (1979). Measuring constituency-representative linkages: Problems and prospects. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4(4), 623639.
  • Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22(1), 103135.
  • Tyler, T. R., & Rasinski, K. (1991). Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of unpopular U.S. Supreme Court decisions: A reply to Gibson. Law and Society Review, 25(3), 621630.
  • Weissberg, R. (1976). Public opinion and popular government. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.