Realism Vs Realism Analysis

“Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” by James L. Gibson and Gregory A. Caldeira synthesis current views of the court system through the process of either of mechanical jurisprudence and realism. The overarching question that the researchers are trying to figure out is “Does understanding how U.S. Supreme Court justices actually decide cases undermine the institutional legitimacy of the nation’s highest court?” With this question, it can influence the decision of future pressing cases and indirectly the political environment, it can answer what people think of the Supreme Court and whether they believe the Supreme Court is independent and separate, and it can help reinforce the legitimacy of the Supreme Court

Realism is basically the idea “that judges have discretion and that judges make discretionary decisions on the basis of ideology and values, even if not strictly speaking on partisanship. These are beliefs we associate with legal realism.” (Gibson & Caldeira, 2011, 207-208) These conflicting beliefs creates many options for a reasonable answer ranging from the support of mechanical jurisprudence, the support of realism, or a combination of

One of the studies created by the authors’ was through the degree of agreement and disagreement with each respondent answering the 5-point Likert response set. Some of the findings were “Most Americans (57.3 percent) agree that judges actually base their decisions on their own personal beliefs….Only 1.9 percent of the sample subscribed to the theory of mechanical jurisprudence in response to all four of the propositions. Most Americans have a fairly realistic view of how Supreme Court Justices make their decisions (54.9 percent endorse one or none of the mechanical jurisprudence positions).” (207) In another survey they make similar claims that the American populace is more believing in the idea of realism as stated “...those who are more knowledgeable are less likely to asset that the political views of the justices are irrelevant, with only 29.0 percent of the most knowledgeable respondents subscribing to this viewpoint….At the other extreme, those most knowledgeable are most likely to reject the view that judges are merely politicians in robes. The contrast between the percentage is striking, with 69.4 percent of the most knowledgeable, but only 21.4 percent of the least knowledgeable rejecting this statement.” (211) The last part makes a counter statement and so does an author from a another study, which he claims