Monday, October 17, 2022

Law and public opinion, part 1

Starting in 1987, a number of surveys have asked "When the Supreme Court decides an important constitutional case, should it only consider the legal issues, or should it also consider what the majority of the public thinks about that subject?"  I was interested in seeing if there were any consistent partisan or ideological differences on this question, but got diverted when I did a cross-tabulation with education:


                                           Legal        Depends (vol.)      Public Opinion
No HS diploma                    32%               4%                     64%
HS                                        42%               4%                     54%
Some College                       57%                4%                    40%
BA                                        64%               5%                     31%
Grad educ                             76%               5%                     19%

This is a strong relationship, by the standards of public opinion data--about as strong as the relationship with a question about how much attention you had been paying to the confirmation hearings for John Roberts, which were going on at the time.   A little more investigation showed that age was also a strong predictor, although not as strong as education--older people were more likely to say that the court should only consider the legal issues.  So far, I have only analyzed one survey, so this could be either a cohort or an age effect. Gender and race also seemed to make some difference (women and blacks are more likely to say that it should consider public opinion), but there's no evidence that religion mattered.  

Over time, there seems to have been some movement towards saying that the court should just consider the legal issues:

                      Legal        Public Opinion
9/1987            32%             60%
7/2005            48%             46%
3/2013            46%             45%
5/2013            47%             45%
6/2015            52%             40%

However, the 1987 survey was taken during the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, so the results for that survey may represent a reaction against him--unlike subsequent nominees, he made it clear that his legal interpretations would lead him in unpopular directions.  


 [Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]

8 comments:

  1. I think there is a typo on the BA row as the numbers do not add up close to 100%

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think there is a typo in the last paragraph and it should say 1987 survey not 1997 survey.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shouldn't there be some division in "education" for the type of college degree? I always laugh when grade-school teachers say they have "the same degree" as an engineer - which they claim often. OK it's an anecdote but there's no question that an engineering degree is **far** more difficult than a primary ed degree. When my BIL took his MBA, the profs always skipped over the calculus in the textbooks, so even an MBA is weak compared to an engineering degree or a BS in chem or physics. What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I ask about education in part because I'm concerned in general about the education of our Congressional people. My senators both have very light degrees (phys ed and public admin) and effectively zero work experience outside of politics. If I personally were to rate their bachelor's degrees by the actual education they get, they'd be, say, 2 & 3 on a scale of ten. That means my Senators are much closer to "some college" than "master's degree", and is consistent with their views on the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very few surveys ask about anything beyond general level of education (e. g., where you went to school, what you studied, or how well you did). So yes, if you think of "education" as a measure of knowledge or intellectual sophistication, there's a lot of measurement error. But it's also possible that merely possessing the credential makes a difference--that credentialed people are more likely to think that "experts" should make decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "But it's also possible...that credentialed people are more likely to think that "experts" should make decisions."

    I'm certain this is true! :) The question is: is it a good thing? Obviously people need to know understand the topic that they're making decisions about.

    You might remember, maybe it's been five years or so, since some studies were published indicating that always treating breast and prostate cancer aggressively is on net harmful, since many people with mild cancer suffer serious problems from the side effects of treatment. Right away doctors were all over the news proving that they don't understand the meaning of "anecdotal", claiming that the study was no good because they treated someone aggressively and saved their life bla bla bla bla. It was a ridiculous display of expert incompetence.

    So I guess the upshot is that if you're an elected official, you need to have enough general knowledge to assess the assessments of the experts, who's assessments are frequently driven by their own self-interest (doctors don't get paid for not treating). It's hard to imagine that getting a primary ed degree and teaching kindergarten normally gets people that knowledge.

    ReplyDelete