Record Details


Field	Value

Title	Replication Data for: The Costs of Court Curbing

Identifier	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JGST70

Creator	Driscoll, Amanda Nelson, Michael

Publisher	Harvard Dataverse

Description	Canonical models of interbranch relations assume that incumbents undermine well-respected courts at their own peril. Although court curbing proposals are frequent in diverse political and institutional contexts, there have been few efforts to examine the electoral costs of interbranch aggression. Drawing upon vignette and conjoint experiments, we find some evidence that the public will punish incumbents for attacks on courts. However, the size of the effect varies: it is largest among individuals who hold the court in high esteem and can be mitigated by copartisanship with the proposer. Moreover, once information about partisanship and issue positions is available to respondents, the effect of supporting court curbing is smaller than those other considerations. These results have implications for the public's willingness to safeguard the institutional separation of powers via the electoral connection and suggest that politicians may engage in activities that erode democracy without a broad loss of public support.

Subject	Social Sciences court curbing legitimacy judicial politics

Contributor	Nelson, Michael

ICAR Research Data Repository for Knowledge Management