The primary data analyzed in this book are collected from a series of panel studies. Since there are some statistical issues with this kind of analysis, I include a brief discussion of those problems and issues in this appendix, but this section is not essential to understand the analysis presented in the empirical chapters. Specifically, there are various concerns with how the dependent variables are measured. In panel studies, there are a number of approaches to analyzing effects over time. Two of the most common groups of approaches are “change score” models and “regression adjustment” or “static score” models (Judd and Kenney 1984; Finkel 1995). Each of these models improves upon standard cross-sectional approaches by incorporating the dynamic components, but in so doing they can suffer from a different set of statistical problems.

The “change score” method uses simple differences between the level of the dependent variable at the various time points. In a two-wave study, the change score is simply the difference between the dependent variable at the first and second measurements. This method regresses the change in Y on the change in X. Variations in this general model include using either X from a single time point rather than the change in X. This model is also known as the “unconditional change score” or the method of first differences (Finkel 1995, pg. 5).

Every few decades, the Supreme Court hands down a monumental decision that grasps both public and elite attention. It is almost impossible to think of the Court without conjuring up images of such decisions as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Roe v. Wade (1973), and most recently, Bush v. Gore (2000). Each was followed by intense media coverage, heated debate among citizens and scholars alike about the issues in the cases, as well as discussions about the very legitimacy of the Court itself.

After Bush v. Gore, for example, many people wondered whether the ultimate winner of this strange presidential election would have an effective mandate to govern. The question on every mind, and at the forefront of many discussions, was whether or not the Court's decision would be able to cast legitimacy on an otherwise disputable electoral outcome. After a majority on the Court ruled in support of George W. Bush in what appeared to be a closely divided partisan and ideological division, a new topic of discussion emerged. Now, in addition to discussions about whether the Court could cast legitimacy on Bush's presidential administration, speculation about the consequences of the decision for the Court itself quickly emerged. By entering into such a contentious and political dispute, would the Court's decision ultimately cause itself immediate and long-term damage?

INTRODUCTION

When the Supreme Court entered into the 2000 presidential election, it placed itself in the middle of one of the most heated political debates in recent memory. While most citizens could probably not explain the subtleties of the legal arguments, virtually everyone knew the decision would ultimately determine the outcome of the election. The reason why the electorate was so well informed is simple: For weeks, the Court's decision was featured in the morning newspaper, on the television evening news, or on the car radio during the morning commute. The Court's decision simply saturated the media, and consequently, people across the nation were interested in the Supreme Court. Many Americans also know of the Court's involvement in other controversial issues such as abortion, school desegregation, and flag burning.

The initial sampling frame for the Center Moriches study included 326 working telephone numbers. Of these 326 numbers, 212 were contacted and agreed to participate in the first wave of the study, for a response rate of 65 percent. Of these 212 initial respondents, 112 were successfully recontacted and agreed to participate in the second wave, for a retention rate of 52.8 percent.

For the Monroe study, 167 respondents (from a sampling frame of 300 working numbers) were contacted and agreed to participate in the first wave, for a response rate of 55.67 percent. Of these 167 respondents, 122 were successfully recontacted and agreed to participate in the second wave, for a retention rate of 73.1 percent.

In the Oklahoma study, 206 people participated in the first wave. The initial sampling frame consisted of 395, for a response rate of 52.15 percent. The second wave successfully recontacted 116 of the 206 initial respondents, for a retention rate of 56.3 percent.

In the Oregon study, the initial sampling frame included 413 phone numbers. Of these, 243 people were contacted, for a response rate of 58.8 percent. For the second wave, 145 were contacted and agreed to participate, for a retention rate of 59.7 percent.

Overall, 836 individuals participated in the first wave; and, of these, 495 respondents were contacted following the Court's decision and agreed to be interviewed again.

LOCAL MEDIA COVERAGE

What is the nature of the relationship between the Supreme Court and public opinion? Obviously, it is a complicated one. The Supreme Court makes decisions on some of the most complex and salient issues of the day. They also resolve more routine policy questions. To some degree they are able to do so with less intense media and public scrutiny than Congress or the executive branch. But, as the results from these studies show, the institution is by no means removed from the public eye. The media, especially the local media, pay a great deal of attention to the Court – much more than previously recognized. Looking at national coverage of Court cases overlooks the simple fact that not all cases are equally newsworthy to all citizens in all media markets. If the results from this book point to anything, it is that the local media were much more likely to provide consumers with information on homegrown cases than were the national media or the media from other parts of the nation.

As detailed in Chapter 3, the local media provided both quantity and quality of coverage. Even The New York Times, this nation's paper of record, did not do a better job than the local media. The local newspapers devoted more space than did other newspapers.

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of a Court case is a prerequisite for it to have an effect on public opinion; but, the apparent lack of public awareness has been the single most difficult obstacle in real-world studies of the Court's persuasive appeal. However, the previous chapter revealed that extensive local media coverage of these four local cases resulted in intense public interest and knowledge of the cases. While there were differences between these cases, in general, there was substantial support for the hypotheses about media attention, public awareness, and perceptions of importance.

Coverage of the Monroe case was incredibly extensive and produced high levels of awareness across both geographic samples. In the Center Moriches case, media coverage was moderately high, certainly higher than national media interest, and this local coverage produced the highest levels of awareness across all four cases. As with the Monroe case, knowledge was nearly equal between the samples, especially after controlling for other factors, such as interest in politics and level of education.

In the Oregon spotted owl case, media coverage was also high, especially compared with national coverage.

INTRODUCTION

Chief Justice Rehnquist raises an important issue. Many scholars believe that while the members of the Court need not rely on public support in the same way as legislators or other elected officials, the specter of public disapproval apparently still looms large. Why should the justices care about public support if they are appointed to life tenured positions, cannot be overturned by any higher court, and are not likely to pursue higher office? The most important reason they should care is that public trust and confidence are precious political resources. Recall Felix Frankfurter's words in Baker v. Carr from Chapter 1. In that case, he said, “The Court's authority – possessed of neither the purse nor the sword – ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction.” Public confidence can harbor the institution from attacks initiated by other branches of government and may also increase the likelihood of compliance with its decisions. But, the question remains as to whether popular decisions increase confidence in the Court and whether unpopular decisions decrease public confidence.

If Court decisions do not affect support for the institution, the justices need not worry about public reaction to those decisions.