【正文】 decisionmaking, and concludes that public opinion may have a marginal effect. It next attempts to explain how this influence operates, but finds both political and informal intrajudicial constraints inadequate to account for public opinion39。s influence on the judiciary. Finally, it examines the use of opinion polls in Atkins to determine the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment. Part IV examines judicial decisional tools themselves to explain the apparent effect of public opinion on judicial decisionmaking. It first outlines the traditional spectrum of deference, which serves as an example for the contextspecific analysis of whether public opinion could be appropriate as a doctrinal consideration in various contexts. It next examines whether public opinion could be a legitimate consideration in various contexts, including statutory interpretation, mon lawmaking, and several constitutional contexts. The Article concludes by examining the tendency of various doctrines to reflect public opinion, and the effect of recent jurisprudence on the public opinionmirroring ability of those doctrines.II. The Debate over Public Opinion in Judicial DecisionmakingA．Public Opinion as Anathema to Judicial IndependenceThere is widespread agreement that in certain cases, public opinion should not play any role in a judge39。s decision. For example, determinations of whether probable cause exists to try a defendant should not be influenced by public outcry that the defendant is guilty. n9 Nor should public animus influence individual sentencing decisions. n10 A recent example of these dangers is illuminating.In 1995, Federal District Judge Baer of the Southern District of New York presided over a high profile drug prosecution. After a hearing where Judge Baer found the testimony of defense witnesses credible and the testimony of police officers incredible, he excluded large quantities of drugs and a confession, ruling that they were obtained in violation of the defendant39。s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.The public and political responses were immediate. The New York Times ran several editorials condemning the ruling. Members of Congress spoke publicly about impeachment, and some even asked President Clinton to add his voice to the criticism. In the meantime, Judge Baer granted a rehearing on the suppression motion. President Clinton declined to ment on the case pending the results of the rehearing. According to the New York Times, a group of Circuit Court judges, and several mentators, the message to Judge Baer was clear: reverse yourself, or risk losing your job, despite the convention against impeaching federal judges because of their decisions. After rehearing the motion, Judge Baer reversed his original decision and admitted the evidence, citing newlyintroduced police reports as additional evidence that pelled him to change his mind. But critics claim that this additional evidence could not have been a sufficient ground for reversal, and may have even hurt the prosecution39。s case by creating additional inconsistencies with the officers39。 testimony. Judge Baer was in a nowin situation. There was negative publicity about his original decision to exclude the evidence, and there would be a negative public reaction to a change of position based on his decision to include the evidenceboth of which could undermine public confidence in the impartial nature of the judiciary. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote about the effects of public opinion on the judicial decisionmaking process, concluding that no judge can conscientiously say in so many words, I gave you my best judgment when I decided that the Constitution meant thus and so, but since the public overwhelmingly disagrees with my interpretation of the Constitution, I will therefore change my mind. On its face, this statement appears to reject public opinion as a consideration in constitutional adjudication, a position consistent with much of Rehnquist39。s jurisprudence.In these contexts, capitulation to contrary public opinion would signal the end of judicial independence. But a careful consideration of public opinion in certain cases does not necessarily indicate an erosion of judicial independence. Commentators and jurists have long acknowledged the influence of public opinion without concluding that the judiciary has abdicated its responsibility of independent judgment.B. Competing Judicial Views on the Propriety on Considering Public OpinionCommentators and jurists have long recognized the effect of public opinion on the judiciary in circumstances where it is not a threat to judicial independence. The Chief Justice Rehnquist, drawing on his experience as a law clerk to Justice Jackson, concluded that public opinion had a significant influence on the Court39。s disposition in the Steel Seizure case. In 1952, President Truman, fearing that a reduction in steel production would hinder the Korean War effort, ordered federal officials to seize and operate several steel production facilities during a strike. Steel panies brought suit and obtained an injunction from the district court enjoining the President from seizing the steel mills. The government obtained a stay from the court of appeals and appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and heard arguments nine days later. The Court rejected the government39。s argument that the seizure was justified by certain powers given to the President under Article II of the Constitution. The timing of the government39。s inherent power argument was not good, as support for both the Korean War and President Truman was at its nadir. Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that the tides of public opinion, accelerated and intensified by the rapid movement of the case through the federal judicial system, influenced the Court39。s decision. Acknowledging public opinion39。s influence and incorporating it into doctrine are separate propositions, however. Chief Justice Reh