The consistency of judicial choice

Journal of Politics

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 861-873

  Collins Jr , Paul M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 46849094757     PISSN: 00223816     EISSN: 14682508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S002238160808081X     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Alvarez, R. Michael, and John Brehm. 1995. "American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Hetero-skedastic Probit Model of Competing Values." American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 1055-82.
2. Bailey, Michael, Brian Kamoie, and Forrest Maltzman. 2005. "Signals from the Tenth Justice: The Political Role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court Decision Making." American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 72-85.
3. Bartels, Brandon L. 2005. "Heterogeneity in Supreme Court Decision-Making: How Case-Level Factors Alter Preference Based Behavior." Presented at the Political Methodology Summer Conference.
4. Baum, Lawrence. 1994. "What Judges Want: Judges' Goals and Judicial Behavior." Political Research Quarterly 47 (3): 749-68.
5. Beck, Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker. 1998. "Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable." American Journal of Political Science 42 (4): 1260-88.
6. Braumoeller, Bear F. 2006. "Explaining Variance: Or, Stuck in a Moment We Can't Get Out Of." Political Analysis 14 (3): 268-90.
7. Brenner, Saul. 1983. "Another Look at Freshman Indecisiveness on the United States Supreme Court." Polity 16 (2): 320-28.
8. Brenner, Saul, and Theodore S. Arrington. 2002. "Measuring Salience on the Supreme Court: A Research Note." Jurimetrics 43 (Fall): 99-113.
9. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1952).
10. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
11. nd ed. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.
12. Clark, David H., and Timothy Nordstrom. 2005. "Democratic Variants and Democratic Variance: How Domestic Constraints Shape Interstate Conflict." Journal of Politics 67 (1): 250-70.
13. Collins, Paul M., Jr. 2004. "Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation." Law and Society Review 38 (4): 807-32.
14. Coons, John E. 1987. "Consistency." California Law Review 75 (1): 59-113.
15. Epstein, Lee, Valerie Hoekstra, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1998. "Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices." Journal of Politics 60 (3): 801-18.
16. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
17. Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. "Measuring Issue Salience." American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66-83.
18. Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Timothy R. Johnson. 1996. "The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 34 (4): 845-52.
19. Galanter, Marc. 1974. "Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change." Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95-160.
20. Giles, Michael W., and Christopher Zorn. 2000. "Gibson Versus Case-Based Approaches: Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part." Law and Courts 10 (2): 10-16.
21. th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. Hagle, Timothy M. 1993. "'Freshman Effects' for Supreme Court Justices." American Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 1142-57.
23. Hansford, Thomas G. 2004. "Information Provision, Organizational Constraints, and the Decision to Submit an Amicus Curiae Brief in a U.S. Supreme Court Case." Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 219-30.
24. Heck, Edward V., and Melinda Gann Hall. 1981. "Bloc Voting and the Freshman Justice Revisited." Journal of Politics 43 (3): 852-60.
25. Heider, Fritz. 1946. "Attitudes and Cognitive Organization." Journal of Psychology 21 (1): 107-12.
26. Hurwitz, Mark S., and Joseph V. Stefko. 2004. "Acclimation and Attitudes: 'Newcomer' Justices and Precedent Conformance on the Supreme Court." Political Research Quarterly 57 (1): 121-29.
27. Kearney, Joseph D., and Thomas W. Merrill. 2000. "The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148 (3): 743-855.
28. Krosnick, Jon A., and Richard E. Petty. 1995. "Attitude Strength: An Overview." In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, ed. Richard E. Pettyand Jon A. Krosnick. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1-24.
29. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
30. Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Merrill, Thomas M. 2003. "The Making of the Second Rehnquist Court: A Preliminary Analysis." St. Louis University Law Journal 47 (3): 569-658.
32. Miller, Joanne M., and David A. M. Peterson. 2004. "Theoretical and Empirical Implications of Attitude Strength." Journal of Politics 66 (3): 847-67.
33. Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. NAACP v. Claiborne, 458 U.S. 886 (1982).
35. O'Connor, Karen. 1983. "The Amicus Curiae Role of the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court Litigation." Judicature 66 (December-January): 256-64.
36. Pacelle, Richard L., Jr. 1991. The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda: From the New Deal to the Reagan Administration. Boulder: Westview Press.
37. Pacelle, Richard, and Patricia Pauly. 1996. "The Freshman Effect Revisited: An Individual-Based Analysis." American Review of Politics 17 (1): 1-22.
38. Perry, H. W. Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
39. Peters, Christopher J. 1996. "Foolish Consistency: On Equality, Integrity, and Justice in Stare Decisis." Yale Law Journal 105 (8): 2031-2115.
40. Posavac, Steven S., David M. Sanbonmatsu, and Russell H. Fazio 1997. "Considering the Best Choice: Effects of the Salience and Accessibility of Alternatives on Attitude-Decision Consistency." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (3): 253-61.
41. Rosenberg, Milton J. 1968. "Hedonism, Inauthenticity, and Other Goads toward Expansion of a Consistency Theory." In Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, ed. Robert P. Abelson, Elliot Aronson, William J. McGuire, Theodore M. Newcomb, Milton J. Rosenberg, and Percy H. Tannenbaum. Chicago: Rand McNally, 73-111.
42. Scalia, Antonin. 1997. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
43. Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
44. Schubert, James N., Steven A. Peterson, Glendon Schubert, and Stephen Wasby. 1992. "Observing Supreme Court Oral Argument: A Biosocial Approach." Politics and the Life Sciences 11 (February): 35-51.
45. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1986. "Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers: An Individual-Level Analysis of the Search and Seizure Cases." Journal of Politics 48 (4): 938-55.
46. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover. 1989. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices." American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557-65.
47. Segal, Jeffrey A., Lee Epstein, Charles M. Cameron, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995. "Ideological Values and the Votes of Justices Revisited." Journal of Politics 57 (3): 812-23.
48. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Severin, Werner J., and James W. Tankard, Jr. 1997. Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. New York: Longman.
51. Shavell, Steven. 1995. "The Appeals Process as a Means of Error Correction." Journal of Legal Studies 24 (2): 379-426.
52. Sheehan, Reginald S., William Mishler, and Donald R. Songer. 1992. "Ideology, Status and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 86 (2): 464-71.
53. Snyder, Eloise. 1958. "The Supreme Court as a Small Group." Social Forces 36 (March): 232-38.
54. Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. "Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court." Political Research Quarterly 46 (2): 339-54.
55. Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Vinson-Warren Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1946-1968 Terms. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Available at: http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm (November 13, 2007).
56. Spaeth, Harold J. 2003. The Original United States Supreme Court Database, 1953-2001 Terms. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Available at: http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm (November 13, 2007).
57. Spaeth, Harold J., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Szmer, John, and Donald R. Songer. 2005. "The Effects of Information on the Accuracy of Presidential Assessments of Supreme Court Nominee Preferences." Political Research Quarterly 58 (1): 151-60.
59. Tourangeau, Roger, and Kenneth A. Rasinski. 1988. "Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement." Psychobgical Bulletin 103 (3): 299-314.
60. Unah, Isaac, and Ange-Marie Hancock. 2006. "U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making, Case Salience, and the Attitudinal Model." Law and Policy 28 (3): 295-320.
61. Wicker, Allen W. 1969. "Attitudes versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects." Journal of Social Issues 25 (4): 41-78.
62. Zorn, Christopher, and Gregory A. Caldeira. 2003. "Bias and Heterogeneity in a Media-Based Measure of Supreme Court Preferences." Presented at the Arleen Carlson Symposium on Judicial Decision Making, Minneapolis.