Explaining executive success in the U.S. Supreme Court

Political Research Quarterly

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 505-526

  McGuire, Kevin T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032330367     PISSN: 10659129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/106591299805100210     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aldrich, John H., and Forrest D. Nelson. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models. Beverly Hills: Sage.
2. Armstrong, Virginia, and Charles A. Johnson. 1982. "Certiorari Decision Making by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?" Polity 15: 141-50.
3. Baird, Douglas G., Robert H. Gertner, and Randal C. Picker. 1994. Game Theory and the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Baum, Lawrence. 1977. "Policy Goals in Judicial Gate-Keeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction." American Journal of Political Science 21: 13-36.
5. Brigman, William Edward. 1966. "The Office of the Solicitor General of the United States." Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
6. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. "Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 82: 1109-27.
7. Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice. New York: Knopf.
8. Cooper, James L. 1990. "The Solicitor General and the Evolution of Activism." Indiana Law Journal 65: 675-96.
9. Dahl, Robert. 1957. "Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as National Policy-Maker." Journal of Public Law 6: 279-95.
10. Galanter, Marc. 1974. "Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change." Law & Society Review 9: 95-160.
11. George, Tracey E., and Lee Epstein. 1992. "On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making." American Political Science Review 86: 323-37.
12. Harlan, John M., Jr. [1955] 1985. "The Role of Oral Argument." Reprint. In Mark W. Cannon and David O'Brien, eds., Views from the Bench: The Judiciary and Constitutional Politics. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
13. McConnell, Michael W. 1988. "The Rule of Law and the Role of the Solicitor General." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 21: 1105-18.
14. McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. "Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success." Journal of Politics 57: 187-96.
15. McGuire, Kevin T., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1993. "Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity." American Political Science Review 87: 717-26.
16. Note. 1969. "Government Litigation in the Supreme Court: The Role of the Solicitor General." Yale Law Journal 78: 1442-81.
17. Note. 1987. "Mixing Politics and Justice: The Office of the Solicitor General." Journal of Law & Politics 4: 379-428.
18. O'Connor, Karen. 1983. "The Amicus Curiae Role of the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court Litigation." Judicature 66: 256-64.
19. Perry, H. W., Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Provine, D. Marie. 1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Puro, Steven. 1981. "The United States as Amicus Curiae." In S. Sidney Ulmer, ed., Courts, Law and Judicial Processes. New York: Free Press.
22. Salokar, Rebecca Mae. 1992. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
23. Schlozman, Kay L., and John T. Tierney 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
24. Scigliano, Robert L. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.
25. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. "Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts." Western Political Quarterly 41: 135-44.
26. _. 1990. "Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: The Effect of Presidential Appointments." Western Political Quarterly 43: 137-52.
27. _. 1991. "Courts, Executives, and Legislatures." In John B. Gates and Charles A. Johnson, eds., American Courts: A Critical Assessment. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
28. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cheryl D. Reedy. 1988. "The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General." Western Political Quarterly 41: 553-68.
29. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Shapiro, Stephen M. 1984. "Oral Argument in the Supreme Court of the United States." Catholic University Law Review 33: 529-53.
31. Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer. 1992. "Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 86: 464-71.
32. Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1992. "Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals." American Journal of Political Science 36: 235-58.
33. Spence, Michael A. 1974. Market Signaling: Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Stern, Robert L. 1960. "The Solicitor General's Office and Administrative Agency Litigation." American Bar Association Journal 46: 154-58, 217-18.
35. Stern, Robert L., Eugene Gressman, Stephen M. Shapiro, and Kenneth S. Geller. 1993. Supreme Court Practice, 7th ed. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
36. Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin, and Daniel Rosen. 1963. "The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory." In Glendon Schubert, ed., Judicial Decision-Making. New York: Free Press.
37. Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1994. "The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change." Journal of Politics 59: 778-802.
38. Wheeler, Stanton, Bliss Cartwright, Robert A. Kagan, and Lawrence M. Friedman. 1987. "Do the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970." Law & Society Review 21: 403-45.
39. Wilkins, Richard G. 1988. "An Officer and an Advocate: The Role of the Solicitor General." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 21: 1167-86.