Estimating Judicial Ideology

There is a strong consensus among scholars of politics in the USA that liberal and conservative political elites have grown increasingly polarized over the past few decades.

“For example, there is a strong consensus among scholars of politics in the USA that liberal and conservative political elites (including members of Congress, party activists, donors and judicial appointees) have grown increasingly polarized over the past few decades27–34.”

Issue or ideological polarization implies either symmetric polarization, in which two groups move in opposite, more extreme directions, or asymmetric polarization, in which one group becomes more extreme than the other.

“This implies either that two groups — such as liberals and conservatives or leftists and rightists — are moving in opposite, more extreme directions (symmetric polarization) or that one group is becoming more extreme than the other (asymmetric polarization10,34,47,48,73–75).”

Liberals and conservatives differ in terms of system-justifying versus system-challenging motives, which might help to explain asymmetric polarization.

“However, they differ in terms of system-justifying (versus system-challenging) motives, which might help to explain asymmetric polarization10,34,47,48,73,74.”

Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right.

“Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right10,27,31,34,37,72,342,343).”