Article summary
This paper examines how Chief Justice John Roberts' handling of healthcare decisions, particularly through his metaphorical 'disrobing' of the court's legitimacy foundations, can reshape our understanding of judicial authority.
This paper examines how Chief Justice John Roberts' handling of healthcare decisions, particularly through his metaphorical 'disrobing' of the court's legitimacy foundations, can reshape our understanding of judicial authority.
Introduction: This article challenges the notion of drastic legal change on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The study challenges the idea that quantity alone matters in judicial decision-making.
Why do some politicians block Supreme Court nominations? New research suggests their votes depend partly on the departing justice's ideology. The analysis finds that U.S. senators evaluate nominees along two main ideological axes: their own distance from the nominee and the potential shift in the court's median vote after confirmation. Crucially, this study reveals an additional factor influencing opposition: senators also react to how much a nominee contrasts ideologically with the departing justice.