Revista da EMERJ - V. 20 - N. 2 - Maio/Agosto - 2018

35  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 20, n. 2, p. 8 - 53, Maio/Agosto 2018  II. Long Term Consequences I already have expressed doubt whether the Supreme Court’s institutional stature and legitimacy depend much, in the long term, on the quality of the legal reasoning of its opinions. 123 Rather, the judgment of history seems to depend more on whether the Court generally reaches the “right” results–meaning simply that its decisions prove consonant with long-term popular opinion. Of course, measu- ring the Court’s relative institutional stature at any particular point in time is difficult. Identifying with any degree of precision the factors that contribute to or detract from that stature is virtually impossible. Necessarily, then, much of what follows is impressionistic. A quick canvass of American constitutional history identifies several factors that may influence the way in which particular Su- preme Court decisions influence the public’s estimation of the Court. First, I shall try to identify the relevant variables. Then, I will illus- trate their application with concrete examples from American cons- titutional history. Finally, I shall consider how these variables apply in the context of Bush v. Gore . My goal is to shed light on how that ruling is likely to impact the Court’s long-term standing. My basic premise, to repeat, is that the Court’s institutional standing ultimately depends on producing decisions that garner the long-term approval of the American public. Thus, the principal va- riable influencing the Court’s reputation is how popular or unpopular its decisions are. Second, in addition to the amount of support and opposition to particular decisions, the intensity of that sentiment– how strongly supporters and opponents feel about the underlying is- sue–influences the Court’s standing. Third and relatedly, intensity of opposition is a function not only of how strongly people feel about an issue, but also how convinced they are that the Court decision resolving that issue will be implemented, rather than evaded or even nullified. Court rulings that are adverse to a constituency’s treasured interests, but that are unlikely to prove efficacious, probably will not generate tremendous resistance. Fourth, how powerful are the constituencies that support and oppose the Court’s rulings? Decisions lambasting the notion that the Court can settle great national controversies through constitutional adjudication, and laud- ing the idea of local rather than national solutions). 123 See supra __.