The tenth justice? Consequences of politicization in the solicitor general's office

Journal of Politics

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 224-237

  Wohlfarth, Patrick C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650783139     PISSN: 00223816     EISSN: 14682508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0022381608090142     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. 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.
2. Baum, Lawrence. 1988. "Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 82 (3): 905-11.
3. Bob Jones University v. United States. 1983. 461 U.S. 574.
4. Brown v. Board of Education. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.
5. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. "Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 82 (4): 1109-27.
6. Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. New York: Vintage Books.
7. Cooper, James. 1990. "The Solicitor General and the Evolution of Activism." Indiana Law Journal 65 (3): 675-96.
8. Days III, Drew. 1994. "In Search of the Solicitor General's Clients: A Drama with Many Characters." Kentucky Law Journal 83 (2): 485-507.
9. Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. "Measuring Issue Salience." American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66-83.
10. Galanter, Marc. 1974. "Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change." Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95-160.
11. Gibson, James. 1997. "United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, Phase II 1953-1993." First ICPSR version. ICPSR Number 6987.
12. Hausegger, Lori, and Lawrence Baum. 1999. "Inviting Congressional Action: A Study of Supreme Court Motivations in Statutory Interpretation." American Journal of Political Science 43 (1): 162-85.
13. Lee, Rex. 1986. "Lawyering for the Government: Politics, Polemics & Principle." Ohio State Law Journal 47 (3): 595-601.
14. Lodge, Milton, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1995. "The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation." American Political Science Review 89 (2): 309-26.
15. nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
16. Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999." Political Analysis 10 (2):134-53.
18. McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. "Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success." The Journal of Politics 57 (1): 187-96.
19. McGuire, Kevin T. 1998. "Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court." Political Research Quarterly 51 (2): 505-26.
20. Meinhold, Stephen S., and Steven A. Shull. 1998. "Policy Congruence between the President and the Solicitor General." Political Research Quarterly 51 (2): 527-37.
21. O'Connor, Karen. 1983. "The Amicus Curiae Role of the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court Litigation." Judicature 66 (5): 256-64.
22. Pacelle, Richard L. Jr. 2002. The Role of the Supreme Court in American Politics: The Least Dangerous Branch? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
23. Pacelle, Richard L. Jr. 2003. Between Law and Politics: The Solicitor General and the Structuring of Race, Gender, and Reproductive Rights Litigation. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
24. Pacelle, Richard L. Jr. 2006. "Amicus Curiae or Amicus Praesidentis? Reexamining the Role of the Solicitor General in Filing Amici." Judicature 89 (6): 317-25.
25. Perry, H. W. Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Puro, Steven. 1981. "The United States as Amicus Curiae." In Courts, Law and Judicial Processes, ed. S. Sidney Ulmer. New York: The Free Press, 220-29.
27. Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.
28. Salokar, Rebecca M. 1992. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple University.
29. th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
30. Scigliano, Robert. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.
31. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. "Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts: A Research Note."Western Political Quarterly 41 (1): 135-44.
32. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cheryl D. Reedy. 1988. "The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General." Western Political Quarterly 41 (3): 553-68.
33. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Spaeth, Harold. 2006. "United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953-2004 Terms." http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/ sctdata.htm (April 6, 2006).
35. Spriggs, James F., and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1997. "Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court." Political Research Quarterly 50 (2): 365-86.
36. Ubertaccio III, Peter N. 2005. Learned in the Law and Politics: The Office of the Solicitor General. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.