Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: In their analysis of the legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore, Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence expound the theory of positivity bias. This theory asserts that pre-existing institutional loyalty shapes perceptions of and judgments about court decisions and events. In this paper, we use the theory of positivity bias to investigate the preferences of Americans regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. More specifically, we derive from that theory the hypothesis that Alito confirmation preferences are shaped by pre-existing commitments to the Supreme Court. We demonstrate that those who have a high level of loyalty toward the Supreme Court rely much more heavily on criteria of judiciousness in forming their opinions on whether to confirm Alito. We conclude that institutional loyalty is an important frame through which Americans view the activity of their Supreme Court, and overcoming the presumptions built into that frame is essential if an opposition is to succeed in opposing a presidential nomination.