100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 41 - 43 out of 45 pages.
Department lawyer specializing in technology issues. “If you’re at the [American Civil Liberties Union], you’re popping a champagne bottle. If you’re at the FBI, you’re scratching your head and thinking of what you’re going to do next.” Many observers date the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of high-tech surveillance to the United States v. Jones decision in 2012, which ruled that police had trespassed when placing an electronic tracking device on a suspect’s car. In applying a traditional
constitutional protection to new technology, the court expressed concerns about the need to update the Fourth Amendment for the modern world. The ruling on cellphone searches, experts said, suggested that the court’s consensus has grown on such issues over the past two years, a period in which the revelations made by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden have sparked international controversy over the privacy implications of high-tech government spying.The Supreme Court controls public perception and the direction of the politics link—this is the best comparative evidence Katerina LInos and Kimberly Twist 10/15/14 (Linos, Professor. UC Berkeley School of Law Twist, Ph.D. from the Travers Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley “The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods” ?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.uchicago.edu%2Ffiles%2Ffilesaccessed 7/6/15 BP)Inturn, public responses depend heavily on the interaction of the choices of the Courtandthe media.The Court can often avoid shifting national opinion by refusing to engage with a controversialcase, and thus reduce the likelihood that most Americans will hear about the issue.The media can also prevent a shift in opinion by giving their audiences both the Court majority’sframeand powerful competing frames.National opinion changes only when the Court and the media act in concert: when the Court rules on a controversial case, and the media decide to present their audiences with one-sided coverage of the decision.Threeresearchdesign innovations allow us to test our theory, andto build the literature on public opinion formation more generally.First, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of Americans shortly before and shortly after two major and surprisingCourt decisions on healthcare andimmigration.Prior studies of Court decisions in real-life settings have been based on survey questions fielded for other purposes, such as the General Social Survey. They thus share a major limitation: There is a very long time gap, often one or more years, between the “before” and the “after” sample, and events other than the Court decision could influence opinion in this interval(Hoekstra 1995, 112).The scarcity of real-life data shortly before and shortly after majorevents is a more general limitation of publicopinion research, because researchers cannot anticipate occurrences such as terrorist attacks, political scandals or natural disasters.The most extensive before-and-after research to date