Presidential agendas and Supreme Court performance : an analysis of the Nixon and Reagan justices

This study examined the extent to which the Supreme Court may be described as legitimate in a democratic society. Unlike the other two branches of the federal government, the Judiciary does not answer to the electorate. In order for an institution such as the Court to be considered legitimate, therefore, there must be some link between elections and the policy output of the justices. This project began by discussing the policy agendas of two recent presidents, Nixon and Reagan, and then assessing the levels of compliance demonstrated by their respective blocs of justices. In the case of both presidents, their justices displayed a marked proclivity to support, at least in part, the policy options articulated at the time of their appointments, although there were differing levels of compliance.

Finally, the study concluded by explaining these disparate levels of compliance. A variety of variables, both internal and external, provide indications as to why bloc justices, while more supportive of the issue areas than the non-bloc justices, did not fully endorse the policy positions of their benefactor presidents. The fact that the Nixon and Reagan bloc justices did have a discernibly higher level of support for the stated agendas does provide some evidence of a link between the democratic process and the Supreme Court.