Conventional wisdom assumes that the public wants judges that will simply interpret and apply the law as it is written. However, existing evidence shows a substantial portion of the American population supports the doctrine of popular constitutionalism. Using two experiments involving the use of social science in legal decisions, we show that popular constitutionalists evaluate the judiciary using a different set of criteria than legal traditionalists. For legal traditionalists, using social science in legal decisions is perceived as an undesirable nonlegal influence and reduces acceptance of a court decision. For popular constitutionalists, social science is perceived as objective evidence that can be used to understand the practical effects of a decision and increases acceptance. We conclude by discussing the need for more research on popular constitutionalists, as little is known about how this group evaluates the judiciary and interprets its actions.

中文翻译：

---

首席大法官与偶像破坏者：大众宪政和支持在法律决策中使用“社会学的 gobbledygook”

传统智慧假设公众希望法官能够简单地解释和适用法律。然而，现有证据表明，很大一部分美国人支持大众宪政主义。通过两个涉及在法律决策中使用社会科学的实验，我们表明流行的宪政主义者使用与法律传统主义者不同的一套标准来评估司法机构。对于法律传统主义者来说，在法律决定中使用社会科学被认为是一种不良的非法律影响，并降低了对法院判决的接受度。对于流行的宪政主义者来说，社会科学被视为客观证据，可以用来理解决策的实际效果并提高接受度。