This article examines how Supreme Court job approval connects to presidential co-partisanship, specifically through the lens of presidential appointment mechanisms.

Context & Theoretical Framework

Does public opinion toward the judiciary depend on the perceived partisan leanings of its members? This study theorizes that a president's influence over the Court shapes public perception in complex ways. We explore how citizens' approval ratings for the Court change based not just on actual rulings, but also on their partisan alignment with sitting presidents.

Methodology

Our analysis uses survey data collected between 1986 and 2019, supplemented by longer-term confidence metrics.

• Case studies focus on high-salience events during transitions from Obama to Trump

• We compare approval ratings of individuals identifying as co-partisans versus out-partisans

Key Findings

* Presidential Influence: Presidents' own party members show significantly higher approval for the Court than those identifying with the opposing party.

* Anticipation vs. Reaction:

* Republicans increase their Court approval following Trump's election victory, suggesting anticipation of presidential influence.

* Democrats see a significant decline in approval only after Justice Gorsuch's confirmation, indicating a reactive pattern rather than anticipation.

Significance & Implications

These findings demonstrate a clear link between presidential partisanship and public opinion formation regarding the judiciary. The president structures perceptions not just through actions but also by influencing partisan biases toward confirmed judges. This creates an important tension for judicial legitimacy: approval driven by anticipatory bias linked to the outgoing president versus reaction tied to the incoming administration.