Aggressive grants by affirm-minded justices

American Politics Research

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 219-234

  Benesh, Sara C ^a   Brenner, Saul ^b   Spaeth, Harold J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^c MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036255068     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X02030003001     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Abraham, H. J. (1980). The judicial process (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Armstrong, V., & Johnson, C. A. ( 1982). Certiorari decisions by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is cue theory time bound? Polity, 75(1), 141-150.
3. Baum, L. (1979). Judicial demand-Screening and decisions on the merits: A second look. American Politics Quarterly, 7(1), 109-119.
4. Baum, L. (1995). The Supreme Court (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
5. Baum, L. ( 1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6. Boucher, R. L., Jr., & Segal, J. A. (1995). Supreme Court justices as strategic decision makers: Aggressive grants and defensive denials on the Vinson Court. Journal of Politics, 57(3), 824-837.
7. Brenner, S. (1979). The new certiorari game. Journal of Politics, 41, 649-655.
8. Brenner, S. (2000). Granting certiorari by the United States Supreme Court: An overview of the social science studies. Law Library Journal, 92(2), 193-201.
9. Brenner, S., & Krol, J. F. (1989). Strategies in certiorari voting on the United States Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 51(4), 828-840.
10. Caldeira, G. A., & Wright, J. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1109-1118.
11. Caldeira, G. A., & Wright, J. R. (1990). The discuss list: Agenda building in the Supreme Court. Law & Society Review, 24(3), 807-836.
12. Caldeira, G. A., Wright, J. R., & Zorn, C.J.W. (1999). Sophisticated voting and gate-keeping in the Supreme Court. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 15(3), 549-572.
13. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in America: The dynamics of agenda building. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
16. Epstein, L., Segal, J. A., Spaeth, H. J., & Walker, T. G. (1996). The Supreme Court compendium (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
17. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
18. Krol, J. F., & Brenner, S. (1990). Strategies in certiorari voting on the United States Supreme Court: A reevaluation. Western Political Quarterly, 43(1), 335-342.
19. McGuire, K. T., & Caldeira, G. A. (1993). Lawyers, organized interests, and the law of obscenity: Agenda setting in the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 87, 717-726.
20. McGuire, K. T., & Palmer, B. (1995). Issue fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 691-702.
21. Murphy, W. F. (1964). Elements of judicial strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. O'Brien, D. M. (2000). Storm center: The Supreme Court in American politics (5th ed.). New York: Norton.
23. Palmer, J. (1982). An econometric analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari decisions. Public Choice, 39(3), 387-398.
24. Palmer, J. (1990). The Vinson Court era. New York: AMS Press.
25. Perry, H. W. (1991). Deciding to decide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Provine, D. M. (1980). Case selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Riker, W. H. (Ed.). (1993). Agenda formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
28. Schubert, G. A. (1959). Quantitative analysis of judicial behavior. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
29. Segal, J. A., Boucher, R., & Cameron, C. M. (1995, April). A policy based model of certiorari voting on the United States Supreme Court. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
30. Segal, J. A., & Cover, A. D. (1989). Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 557-565.
31. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Songer, D. R. (1979). Concern for policy outputs as a cue for Supreme Court decisions on certiorari. Journal of Politics, 41(4), 1185-1194.
33. Spaeth, H. J. (1997). Expanded United States Supreme Court judicial database. East Lansing: Michigan State University Program for Law and Judicial Politics. Available from Michigan State University Web site, http://www.ssc.msu.edu/̃pls/pljp
34. Spaeth, H. J. (1998). Expanded United States Supreme Court judicial database. East Lansing: Michigan State University Program for Law and Judicial Politics. Available from Michigan State University Web site, http://www.ssc.msu.edu/̃pls/pljp
35. Stewart, P. (1979, October 1). Inside the Supreme Court. New York Times, p. 7.
36. Tanenhaus, J., Schick, J., Muraskin, M., & Rosen, D. (1963). The Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction: Cue theory. In G. Schubert (Ed.), Judicial Decision Making (pp. 111-132). London: Free Press.
37. Teger, S., & Kosinski, S. (1980). The cue theory of Supreme Court certiorari jurisdiction: Further consideration of cue theory. Journal of Politics, 42(3), 834-846.
38. Ulmer, S. S. (1972). The decisions to grant certiorari as an indicator to decision "on the merits." Polity, 4(4), 429-447.
39. Ulmer, S. S. (1983). Conflict with Supreme Court precedents and the granting of plenary review. Journal of Politics, 45(2), 474-478.
40. Ulmer, S. S. (1984). The Supreme Court's certiorari decisions: Conflict as a predictive variable. American Political Science Review, 78(4), 901-911.