Part I:

First, some general questions:

1. Some people seem to follow what’s going on in government and public affairs most of the time, whether there’s an election going on or not. Others aren’t that interested. Would you say that you follow what’s going on in government and public affairs most of the time, some of the time, only now and then or hardly at all?

1 2 3 4

Most of the Time Some of the Time Only Now and Then Hardly at All

2. About how many days in the past week did you talk about politics with your family or friends (0-7)?_____

3. Have you or anyone in your household ever contacted your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives or anyone in his or her office?

a.Yes b.No

4. When you were growing up, about how often did your parents or guardians take the position that certain topics like politics and religion are better left undiscussed? Often, sometimes, rarely or never…

1 2 3 4

Often Sometimes Rarely Never

5. How often do you have discussions on controversial matters like politics or religion? Often, sometimes, rarely or never…

1 2 3 4

Often Sometimes Rarely Never

6. To what extent do you think that political conflict is a necessary part of the political process in Washington D.C.?

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

Next are some questions about government. Most people aren’t sure of the correct answer, but we are interested in their best guesses. If you aren’t sure of the answer, you can guess.

7. Whose responsibility it is to determine if a law is constitutional or not?

President Congress Supreme Court Other (Volunteered, Specify _________________________)

8. Who is the current President of Russia?__________________________

9. How much of a majority is required for the U.S. Senate and House to override a presidential veto?

Two-thirds majority Three-quarters majority Other (Volunteered, Specify) _________________________________)

10. Generally speaking, how would you describe your party affiliation, if you have one?

a)Strong b)Weak c)Independent d)Weak e)Strong f)Other g)Apolitical

Democrat Democrat Republican Republican Republican

11. What is your gender?

a)Male b)Female

12. How would you describe your racial background?

a)White b)Black c)American d)Asian or e)Hispanic f)Other_________________

Indian or Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

13. What is your year in college?

a)Freshman b)Sophomore c)Junior d)Senior f)Other_____________________________________

14. We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. Here is a 5-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Where would you place yourself on this scale?

Extremely Liberal Liberal Moderate Conservative Extremely Conservative

15. Do you consider yourself to be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or something else?

Protestant Catholic Jewish Muslim Buddhist Spiritual but not religious

Something else (Please specify _________________________________________)

16. Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible?

a. The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word

b. The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word

c. The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men

17. Are you a citizen of the United States?

Yes No

To what extent to you agree with the following statements:

18. People like me don’t have any say about what government does.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

19. I don’t think public officials care much about what people like me think.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

20. Having elections makes government responsive to the views of the people.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

21. About how many hours a day, on average, do you watch television?

a)None b)2 hours or less c)2-4 hours a day d)4-6 hours a day e)6 or more hours a day

22. Where do you get most of your political news and information (please circle only one):

a)Print b)Television c)Radio d)Entertainment e)Internet f)Other_________

Newspapers News -based television

(either networks and/or CNN) (e.g. Daily Show)

23. Some people think that most of the decisions reached by the Supreme Court lately are too conservative. Others think the Supreme Court's recent decisions are too liberal. Still others think the Court's decisions of late are about right ideologically. What do you think? Are the Supreme Court's recent decisions to conservative, too liberal or about right?

a)Too conservative b) Don’t know c)Don’t know d)About right e) Don’t know f)Too liberal

but probably at all but probably

too conservative too liberal

24. Some people feel that if African-Americans are not getting fair treatment in jobs, the government in Washington ought to see to it that they do. Others feel that this is not the federal government's business. How do you feel? Should the government in Washington see it that African-Americans get fair treatment in jobs or is this not the federal government's business?

a) Government should see to it that African-Americans get fair treatment.

b) It's not the federal government's business whether African-Americans get fair treatment.

25. Which one of the opinions below regarding the legalization of abortion best agrees with your view?

a. By law, abortion should never be permitted

b. The law should permit abortion only in case of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.

c. The law should permit abortion for reasons other than rape, incest, or danger to the woman's life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established.

d. By law, a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice.

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

26. Of all the different philosophies that exist in the world, there is probably only one that is correct.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

27. In the long run, the best way to live is to pick friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

28. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth and those who are against it.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

29. Most of the ideas that get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

30. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to betrayal of our own side.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

31. A group which tolerates too many differences of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

32. It is better to live in an orderly society than to allow people so much freedom that they can become disruptive.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

33. Society shouldn't have to put up with those who have political ideas that are extremely different from the majority.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

34. Supreme Court justices should follow legal guidelines in making decisions rather than following what they personally believe is right.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

35. Supreme Court justices should follow the law even if it goes against what the majority of the people want.

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

36. Would you say you are very aware, somewhat aware, not very aware or have you never heard of the United States Supreme Court?

1 2 3 4 5

Very aware Somewhat aware Not very aware Never heard of DON’T KNOW

37. In general, would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied or not satisfied at all with the way the United States Supreme Court has been working?

1 2 3 4 5

Very Somewhat Not very Not DON’T KNOW

Satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied at all

38. If the Supreme Court started making a lot of decisions that most people disagree with, it might be better to do away with the Supreme Court altogether.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree DON’T KNOW

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

39. The right of the Supreme Court to decide certain types of controversial issues should be reduced.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree DON’T KNOW

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

40. The Supreme Court can usually be trusted to make decisions that are right for the country as a whole.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree DON’T KNOW

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

The Vignettes

Experimental Treatment: Not Uphold and Political Court

Below is an article discussing Supreme Court decision that might appear in a newspaper. Please read the article carefully and, then, respond to the questions in the survey that begin on the next page.

Washington D.C. --- The Supreme Court today struck down the anti-terrorism bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush following the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. In an embattled ruling, a divided Court declared unconstitutional the legislation that had given police new and expanded powers to track, punish and detain suspected terrorists for seven days or more. Civil liberties groups had opposed the legislation, arguing that it has the potential to violate the civil liberties of the nation’s immigrant population.

Justice Stevens, a leader of the liberal coalition on the Court, wrote in his majority opinion that, “This legislation allows people to be detained by the authorities without being told why they are being detained. People cannot defend themselves against a crime if they do not know the nature of the accusation. I would support detaining for up to seven days to protect national security, but only if the accused are informed of the crimes with which they are charged, which this legislation does not require.”

Lynn McCafferty, a Stanford University law professor, said that the majority ruling came after weeks of bargaining and compromise among the Justices.

“Justices Stevens and Ginsburg actually argued that any amount of time over 24 hours should not be allowed,” McCafferty said. “But, Justice O’Connor, who often walks the ideological fence dividing the Court, refused to join the majority opinion without establishing a signal that more detention time would be justified in the case of such a threat to national security. She wanted to send a signal to legislators that they were willing to accept longer detentions under the condition that the accused be informed of all charges. In so doing she orchestrated a compromise among the Justices.

Justice Scalia, one of the Court’s most outspoken conservatives, wrote in his dissenting opinion, “Immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal, do not have the same rights as American citizens, and we should not hold their rights to be sacred above national security concerns. Seven days is a reasonable time to detain immigrants before proceedings must begin; the inconvenience endured by possibly innocent detainees for seven days is worth the benefit of bringing terrorists to justice.”

“The Justices spent weeks in conference sessions debating the trade-offs between civil rights concerns and security issues that this legislation raises,” McCafferty said. “In the end, the civil rights concerns came out on top. On a different day, in a different sort of compromise, it might have been the other way around and security concerns may have prevailed.”

Experimental Treatment: Uphold and Political Court

Below is an article discussing a Supreme Court decision that might appear in a newspaper. Please read the article carefully and, then, respond to the questions in the survey that begin on the next page.

Washington, D.C. --- The Supreme Court today upheld the anti-terrorism bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush following the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. In an embattled ruling, a divided Court declared constitutional the legislation that gives police new and expanded powers to track, punish and detain suspected terrorists for seven days. Civil liberties groups had opposed the legislation, arguing that it has to potential to violate the civil liberties of the nation’s immigrant population.

Justice Scalia, a leader of the conservative coalition on the Court, wrote in his majority opinion, “Immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal, do not have the same rights as American citizens, and we should not hold their rights to be sacred above national security concerns. Seven days is a reasonable time to detain immigrants before proceedings must begin; the inconvenience endured by possibly innocent detainees for seven days is worth the benefit of bringing terrorists to justice.”

Lynn McCafferty, a Stanford University law professor, said the Court’s decision came after weeks of bargaining and compromise among the justices.

“Justices Scalia and Thomas actually supported allowing for indefinite detention until the authorities cleared the matter,” McCafferty said. “They wanted to send a signal to legislators that they were willing to accept longer detention terms. However, Justice O’Connor, who often walks the ideological fence dividing the Court, refused to sign on to the decision to uphold the anti-terrorism bill until the other Justices agreed to a compromise establishing a seven-day restriction.”

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens, one of the Court’s most outspoken liberals, wrote in his dissent that, “This legislation allows people to be detained by the authorities without being told why they are being detained. People cannot defend themselves against a crime if they do not know the nature of the accusation. I would support detaining for longer than 24 hours to protect national security, but informing a person of the crime of which they are accused is more central to the constitution than trial by jury or the right to counsel.”

“The Justices spent weeks in conference sessions debating the trade-offs between security issues and civil rights concerns that this legislation raises,” McCafferty said. “In the end, the security issues came out on top. On a different day, in a different sort of compromise, it might have been the other way around and civil rights may have prevailed.”

Experimental Treatment: Uphold and Legalistic

Below is an article discussing a Supreme Court decision that might appear in a newspaper. Please read the article carefully and, then, respond to the questions in the survey that begin on the next page.

Washington D.C. -- The Supreme Court today unanimously upheld the anti-terrorism bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush following the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. An uncommonly united Court declared the legislation that gives police new and expanded powers to track, punish and detain suspected terrorists for seven days or more constitutional by a 9-0 ruling.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in the Court’s opinion that, “The constitution does not provide immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal, with the same rights as American citizens, and the Constitution requires that we balance national security concerns with rights of citizens.”

Lynn McCaffety, a Stanford University law Professor, said that the legal principles guiding the Court’s decision.

“The right course of legal action was so clearly laid out before the Justices with respect to precedent cases that we expected the Court to come to this unanimous decision,” McCafferty said. “In 1976, a unanimous Court ruled that Congress has broad power over immigration and naturalization and regularly makes rules regarding aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. The Court then effectively ruled that there is no constitutional duty to provide aliens with the welfare benefits provided to other citizens. During times of serious crisis, such as the wartime that we find ourselves in today, this Court has often given broad powers to Congress to deal with the crisis effectively.”

“The Justices had no choice but to hold true to the constitution and the Court’s previous decisions,” McCafferty said.

Experimental Treatment: Not Uphold and Legalistic

Below is an article discussing a Supreme Court decision that might appear in a newspaper. Please read the article carefully and, then, respond to the questions in the survey that begin on the next page.

Washington D.C. -- The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down the anti-terrorism bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush following the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. An uncommonly united Court, declared the legislation that gives police new and expanded powers to track, punish and detain suspected terrorists for seven days or more unconstitutional by a 9-0 ruling.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in the Court’s opinion that “The government cannot deport resident immigrants who have been convicted of certain crimes without giving them a court hearing.” The decision goes on to say, “Freedom from imprisonment -- from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint -- lies at the heart of the liberty that the Constitution protects.”

Lynn McCaffety, a Stanford University law Professor, said that the legal principles guiding the Court’s decision.

“The right course of legal action was so clearly laid out before the Justices with respect to precedent cases that we expected the Court to come to this unanimous decision,” McCafferty said. “There’s just no legal grounds for this legislation. In 1971, this Court found that aliens who reside in the United States pay taxes, support the economy, and contribute to society in other ways, and therefore, they qualify for being protected from arbitrary arrests, just as citizens should expect to be protected.”

Just last year, in Janet Reno v Kim Ho Ma the Court ruled that immigrants could not be detained indefinitely, beyond the length of time that they would have otherwise served in prison.

“This Justices had no choice but to hold true to the constitution and the Court’s previous decisions,” McCafferty said.

Part III:

41. On the whole, how close is your position on this issue to the decision reached by the Supreme Court?

1 2 3 4

Very Close Somewhat Not Very Not At

Close Close All Close

42. How fair do you think the process through which the Supreme Court Justices reached this decision was in this instance?

1 2 3 4

Very Fair Somewhat Fair Not Very Fair Not Fair at All

43. To what extent do you think that the Justices on the Court used legal considerations as opposed to their ideological beliefs in rendering their decisions?

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

44. To what extent do you think that members of the Court engaged in bargaining and compromise to reach this decision?

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

45. Based on your own perceptions of the discussion as it was related to you in the article, how much conflict do you think there was in the deliberation among members of the Court?

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

46. On the whole, how accurate do you think it is to say that no one interest or point of view seemed to have more input and consideration than others in Court deliberations producing this decision?

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

47. How important is it to you that criminal investigators comply with the decision reached by the Court in this instance?

1 2 3 4

Very Important Somewhat Not Very Not at All

Important Important Important

Thinking about people in government, please tell me if you strongly approve, approve, feel neutral, disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the way that the following government actors are currently handling their jobs:

48. What about President George W. Bush?

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Approve Neutral Disapprove Strongly

Approve Disapprove

49. What about the 535 members of Congress?

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Approve Neutral Disapprove Strongly

Approve Disapprove

50. What about the leaders of Congress?

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Approve Neutral Disapprove Strongly

Approve Disapprove

51. What about your own representatives in the U.S. Congress?

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Approve Neutral Disapprove Strongly

Approve Disapprove

52. The Justices currently serving on the U.S. Supreme Court?

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Approve Neutral Disapprove Strongly

Approve Disapprove

53. To what extent do you agree with the outcome of the decision, Bush v. Gore, that decided the presidential election in favor of George W. Bush in 2000?

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

54. To what extent do you agree that in the Bush v Gore decision that decided the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush, the Justices followed legal principles as opposed to their ideological beliefs?

1 2 3 4

Very Much Somewhat Not Very Much Not at All

55. As far as the people running the Supreme Court is concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?

1 2 3 4

a great, only some hardly Don’t know

deal of confidence confidence any confidence

56. How certain are you that in the future you will be financially secure?

1 2 3 4 5

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very DON’T KNOW

Certain Certain Uncertain Uncertain

57. "How certain are you that you will reach your goals for your career?"

1 2 3 4 5

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very DON’T KNOW

Certain Certain Uncertain Uncertain

58. "How certain are you that in the future the US economy will be strong?"

1 2 3 4 5

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very DON’T KNOW

Certain Certain Uncertain Uncertain

59. "How certain are you that in the future the US political system will protect basic democratic rights?"

1 2 3 4 5

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very DON’T KNOW

Certain Certain Uncertain Uncertain