Term paper scenario

Social Judgment Theory

Two justices retired from the Supreme Court, and their positions needed to be filled. The President nominated Howard Pryor and Susan Caulfield. To gain the seats, Judges Pryor and Caulfield needed Congressional approval.

Senator Bertrand Smith chaired the committee that oversaw the questioning of the two judges and made recommendations whether they should be approved for the Supreme Court. Senator Smith held an extremely important position on the committee. He made decisions about what questions could be asked by committee members, had a strong influence on the final vote of the committee, and was the official spokesperson of the committee.

Two groups for years had lobbied Senator Smith. The first group was No More Abortions (NMA). This group consisted of firmly committed members who believed that all abortion should be illegal. Members of this organization based their position on strong moral and religious beliefs. The second group was We Are Pro-Choicers (WAPC). This group consisted of equally committed members who believed that abortion should remain legal. These people based their position on strong beliefs that a woman has an inherent ethical right to determine what she does with her body. They also believed that abortion should remain legal for practical reasons; e.g., deaths from illegal abortions, unwanted and uncared for babies, the financial burden of raising more children than a family could support, etc.

During the course of the senatorial hearings, Senator Smith questioned the judges on many issues, including their views on abortion. Senator Smith had not taken a public stand on abortion. During the first hearing, Judge Pryor replied to Senator Smith’s question about abortion by saying, “I believe that abortion is murder. I am opposed to abortion, except in very special circumstances such as rape, incest, or a potentially fatal health hazard to the woman.” When he returned to his office, Senator Smith found an extremely strongly worded message from the WAPC opposing Judge Pryor’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

During the second hearing, Judge Caulfield answered Senator Smith’s question about abortion by saying, “I believe that the Supreme Court’s Wade vs. Roe decision legalizing abortion is constitutional. A woman’s right to have an abortion should be protected.” Upon returning to his office, Senator Smith found a message from the NMA expressing outrage at Judge Caulfield’s position, and adamantly opposing her appointment to the Supreme Court.

Senator Smith called a press conference. He announced that he did not want to influence members of his committee one way or the other on the abortion issue. He said that he wanted members of the committee to make up their own minds on the abortion issue, and on whether they should approve or reject the appointments of Judges Pryor and Caulfield to the Supreme Court. Senator Smith stated, “I am neutral on the abortion issue.”

Immediately following his press conference, Senator Smith received messages from both the WAPC and NMA expressing outrage at his position on abortion. The WAPC accused Senator Smith of really supporting the NMA position, but lacked the guts to say so. The NMA similarly attacked Senator Smith of really supporting the WAPC position, but lacked the courage to admit this.