Location, Location, Location
posted by Helen Norton
Several recent legal news stories illustrate the intuition that entities’ (or individuals’) physical proximity to each other, without more, sends powerful messages.
For example, the Associated Press reports that Justice Stevens refuses to attend any swearings-in of justices at the White House because he views the ceremony’s mere physical location at a supposedly co-equal branch of government as signalling a lack of judicial independence. Similarly, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to the Washington Post, is moving to a new building of its own — in part because of concerns that the court’s physical location at the Department of Justice might communicate an inappropriate deference to the executive branch it is supposed to oversee.
Is Justice Stevens over-reacting? Probably not. Social science confirms that onlookers are often quick to draw significant conclusions based on individuals’ physical location with respect to others, as I’ve blogged elsewhere. For example, social psychologists have found that observers often form negative impressions of an individual who is simply seen near a person perceived as stigmatized. Observers rated job applicants who were viewed while seated next to an overweight person more negatively than those viewed while seated next to a person of average size. (Physical proximity alone was sufficient to create and reinforce negative associations, as those negative perceptions retained their hold even when the observers were instructed that the individuals seated next to each other did not know each other.)
March 2, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Responses (4)
Paul Horwitz - March 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Helen, you’re focusing (as I read you) on perceptions by onlookers. Might Justice Stevens also be concerned about self-perception? That is, he doesn’t want to be unduly influenced internally by his exposure and proximity to Executive Branch officials and functions. It could be a form of self-restraint.
Bruce Boyden - March 3, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Didn’t Stevens attend the swearing in of President Obama at the Capitol? That would seem to raise the same concern.
Keri Brooks - March 3, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I don’t think attending President Obama’s swearing-in would raise the same concern. It seems that Justice Stevens is objecting to the swearing-in of judges (judicial branch) at the White House (executive branch). The same concern wouldn’t apply to executive officers being sworn in at the White house.
A.J. Sutter - March 4, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I think Bruce is right in the abstract as to separation of powers, though Keri maybe you meant that Justice Stevens specifically, being a judge, wouldn’t care in this situation. To complete the rock-paper-scissors symmetry, members of Congress should get sworn in at SCOTUS.
Leave a Reply