Shaping the supreme court’s federal certiorari docket

Justice System Journal

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 191-207

  Scott, Kevin M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947400688     PISSN: 0098261X     EISSN: 23277556     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2006.10767800     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bailey, M., and K. Chang (2001). “Comparing Presidents, Senators, and Justices: Interinstitutional Preference Estimation,” 17 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 477
2. Baird, V. (2004). “The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda,” 66 Journal of Politics 755
3. Baum, L. (2004). The Supreme Court, 8th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press
4. Baum, L. (1995). “Measuring Policy Change in the Rehnquist Court,” 23 American Politics Quarterly 373
5. Benesh, S. C., S. Brenner, and H. J. Spaeth (2002). “Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices,” 30 American Politics Research 219
6. Bergara, M., B. Richman, and P. T. Spiller (2003). “Modeling Supreme Court Strategic Decision Making: The Congressional Constraint,” 28 Legislative Studies Quarterly 247
7. Brisbin, R. A., Jr., and J. C. Kilwein (1994). “U. S. Supreme Court Review of State High Court Decisions,” 78 Judicature 33
8. Caldeira, G. A., J. R. Wright, and C. J. W. Zorn (1999). “Sophisticated Voting and Gate-keeping in the Supreme Court,” 15 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 549
9. Caldeira, G. A., J. R. Wright, and C. J. W. Zorn (1998). “Of Time and Consensual Norms in the Supreme Court,” 42 American Journal of Political Science 874
10. Cordray, M. M., and R. Cordray (2001). “The Supreme Court’s Plenary Docket,” 58 Washington and Lee Law Review 737
11. Duffy, S. (1995). “Inside the Highest Court: Souter Describes Justices’ Relationship, Caseload Trend,” Pennsylvania Law Weekly, April 17
12. Epstein, L., and J. Knight (1998). The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press
13. Epstein, L., and J. Knight (1996). “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” 40 American Journal of Political Science 1018
14. Giles, M. A., V. A. Hettinger, and T. C. Peppers (2001). “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas,” 54 Political Research Quarterly 623
15. Greenhouse, L. (2005). Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey. New York: Times Books
16. Hellman, A. D. (1998). “Light on a Darkling Plain: Intercircuit Conflicts in the Perspective of Time and Experience,” Supreme Court Review 247
17. Hellman, A. D. (1996). “The Shrunken Docket of the Rehnquist Court,” Supreme Court Review 403
18. Hellman, A. D. (1983). “Error Correction, Lawmaking, and the Supreme Court’s Exercise of Discretionary Review,” 44 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 795
19. Hettinger, V. A., S. A. Lindquist, and W. L. Martinek (2004). “Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 48 American Journal of Political Science 123
20. Hunter, E. (1987). “Statement in Hearing on HR 3152, Court Reform and Access to Justice Act.” 100th Cong., 2nd sess., 23 September
21. Keck, T. M. (2004). The Most Activist Supreme Court in History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
22. Lacovara, P. A. (2003). “Off to Work They Go,” Legal Times, December 29
23. Lane, C. (2004). “Caseload Reflects Court’s Altered Role,” Washington Post, February 2, p. A15
24. Maltzman, F., J. Spriggs, and P. Wahlbeck (2000). Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press
25. Martin, A. D., and K. M. Quinn (2002). “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999,” 10 Political Analysis 134
26. Mauro, T. (2003). “The High Court’s Incredible Shrinking Docket,” Legal Times, March 10
27. McGuire, K. T. (2005). “Are the Justices Serving too Long? An Assessment of Tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 89 Judicature 8
28. O’Brien, D. M. (1997). “Join-3 Votes, the Rule of Four, the Cert. Pool, and the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Plenary Docket,” 13 Journal of Law and Politics 779
29. Pacelle, R. L., Jr. (1991). The Transformation of the Supreme Court’s Agenda: From the New Deal to the Reagan Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
30. Palmer, J. S. (1990). The Vinson Court Era: The Supreme Court’s Conference Votes: Data and Analysis. New York: AMS Press
31. Perry, H. W., Jr. (1991). Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
32. Posner, R. A. (1996). The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
33. Posner, R. A. (1995). Overcoming Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
34. Provine, D. M. (1980). Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
35. Schwartz, B. (1996). Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases. New York: Oxford University Press
36. Scott, K. M. (2006). “Understanding Judicial Hierarchy: Reversals and the Behavior of Intermediate Appellate Judges,” 40 Law and Society Review 163
37. Segal, J. A. (1997). “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and the Courts,” 91 American Political Science Review 91
38. Segal, J. A., and H. J. Spaeth (2002). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press
39. Solimine, M. E. (2002). “Supreme Court Monitoring of State Courts in the Twenty-first Century,” 35 Indiana Law Review 335
40. Songer, D. R. (1999). The United States Courts of Appeals Database, 1925-1996. ICPSR No. 2086
41. Spaeth, H. J. (2003). United States Supreme Court Judicial Database: 1953-2000 Terms. ICPSR No. 9422
42. Spriggs, J. F., T. R. Johnson, and P. J. Wahlbeck (2005). “The Establishment of Stare Decisis in the American Legal System.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C
43. U.S. Congress. Senate. (2005). Committee on the Judiciary. Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the United States. 109th Cong., 1st sess. 14 September