Logan Strother's guest appearances

Logan Strother

Ipse Dixit

John Newman

Tim Schneider

Eric Goldman

Carrie Goldberg

Lawrence Lessig

Nicholas Bagley

Heidi Matthews

Leigh Goodmark

Todd Zywicki

Simon Tam

Greg Shill

Adam Winkler

Patrick O'Donnell

David Ley

Ben Carter

OwlTail

In this episode, Logan Strother, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Purdue University, discusses his article, "An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Supreme Court Justices’ Public Rhetoric on Perceptions of Judicial Legitimacy," which he co-authored with Colin Glennon, as well as his other scholarship on judicial legitimacy. Strother observes that Supreme Court justices often argue that the Court is an apolitical, neutral arbiter of disputes, in order to increase the institutional legitimacy of the Court. He then presents experimental evidence showing that this legitimizing rhetoric appears to work, especially on people who agree with the outcome of the Court's decisions. Strother is on Twitter at @LoganRStrother.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, <a href="https://www.cla.purdue.edu/directory/profiles/logan-strother.html" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">Logan Strother</a>, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Purdue University, discusses his article, "<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inquiry/article/abs/an-experimental-investigation-of-the-effect-of-supreme-court-justices-public-rhetoric-on-perceptions-of-judicial-legitimacy/649F64F39561F9957679C90FF719AE45" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Supreme Court Justices’ Public Rhetoric on Perceptions of Judicial Legitimacy</a>," which he co-authored with Colin Glennon, as well as his other scholarship on judicial legitimacy. Strother observes that Supreme Court justices often argue that the Court is an apolitical, neutral arbiter of disputes, in order to increase the institutional legitimacy of the Court. He then presents experimental evidence showing that this legitimizing rhetoric appears to work, especially on people who agree with the outcome of the Court's decisions. Strother is on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/LoganRStrother" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@LoganRStrother</a>.This episode was hosted by <a href="http://law.uky.edu/directory/brian-l-frye" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">Brian L. Frye</a>, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/brianlfrye" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@brianlfrye</a>. Hosted on Acast. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for more information.

Logan Strother on Judicial Rhetoric and Institutional Legitimacy