Reconsidering the impact of jurisprudential regimes

Social Science Quarterly

Volumn 87, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 380-394

  Scott, Kevin M ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646740241     PISSN: 00384941     EISSN: 15406237     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00386.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ai, Chunrong R., and Edward C. Norton. 2003. "Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models." Economics Letters 80:123-29.
2. Chicago Police Department v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).
3. Earley v. DiCenso, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
4. Gillman, Howard. 2001. "What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the 'Legal Model' of Judicial Decision Making." Law and Social Inquiry 26:465-504.
5. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).
6. Howard, Robert M., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2002. "An Original Look at Originalism." Law and Society Review 36:113-34.
7. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
8. Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987).
9. Kritzer, Herbert M., and Mark J. Richards. 2003. "Jurisprudential Regimes and Supreme Court Decision Making: The Lemon Regime and Establishment Clause Cases." Law and Society Review 37:827-40.
10. _. 2005. "The Influence of Law in the Supreme Court's Search-and-Seizure Jurisprudence." American Politics Research 33:33-55.
11. Lemon v. Kurtzmann, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
12. Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court." Political Analysis 10:134-53.
13. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984).
14. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727 (1984).
15. Nix v. Williams, 467 US 431 (1984).
16. Orren, Karen, and Stephen Skowronek. 1998-1999. "Regimes and Regime Building in American Government: A Review of Literature on the 1940s." Political Science Quarterly 113:689-702.
17. Richards, Mark J., and Herbert M. Kritzer. 2002. "Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making." American Political Science Review 96:305-20.
18. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover. 1989. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices." American Political Science Review 83:557-66.
19. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1996a. "The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices." American Journal of Political Science 40:971-1003.
20. _. 1996b. "Norms, Dragons, and Stare Decisis: A Response." American Journal of Political Science 40:1063-82.
21. _. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. _. 2003. "Reply to Critics of the Supreme Court Attitudinal Model Revisited." Law and Courts 13(3):31-38.
23. Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984).
24. Spaeth, Harold J., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. United States v. Leon, 468 US 897 (1984).