Choices in context: How case-level factors influence the magnitude of ideological voting on the U.S. Supreme Court

American Politics Research

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 142-175

  Bartels, Brandon L ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

case characteristics; contextual effects; issue attention; judicial decision making; political ideology; U.S. Supreme Court

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650697124     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: 15523373     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X10378633     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Bailey, M.A., Kamoie, B., & Maltzman, F. (2005). Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 72-85.
2. Bailey, M.A., & Maltzman, F. (2008). Does legal doctrine matter? Unpacking law and policy preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 102, 369-384.
3. Bartels, B.L. (2009). The constraining capacity of legal doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 103, 474-495.
4. Baum, L. (1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
5. Baum, L. (2006). Judges and their audiences: A perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Bergara, M., Richman B., & Spiller, P.T. (2003). Modeling Supreme Court strategic decision making: The congressional constraint. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28, 247-280.
7. Braman, E., & Nelson, T.E. (2007). Mechanism of motivated reasoning? Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 940-956.
8. Brazill, T.J., & Grofman, B. (2002). Factor analysis versus multi-dimensional scaling: Binary choice roll-call voting and the U.S. Supreme Court. Social Networks, 24, 201-229.
9. Caldeira, G.A., & Wright, J.R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82, 1109-1127.
10. Collins, P.M. (2008). The consistency of judicial choice. Journal of Politics, 70, 861-873.
11. Ducat, C., & Dudley, R. (1987). Dimensions underlying economic policymaking in the early and later Burger Court. Journal of Politics, 49, 521-539.
12. Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
13. Edelman, P.H., Klein, D.E., & Lindquist, S.A. (2008). Measuring deviations from expected voting patterns on collegial courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5, 819-852.
14. Epstein, L., Hoekstra, V., Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (1998). Do political preferences change? A longitudinal study of U.S. Supreme Court justices. Journal of Politics, 60, 801-818.
15. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
16. Epstein, L., Knight, J., & Martin, A.D. (2001). The Supreme Court as a strategic national policymaker. Emory Law Journal, 50, 563-611.
17. Epstein, L., Martin, A.D., Quinn, K.M., & Segal, J.A. (2007). Ideological drift among Supreme Court justices: Who, when, and how important? Northwestern University Law Review, 101, 1483-1503.
18. Epstein, L., & Mershon, C.A. (1996). Measuring political preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 261-294.
19. Epstein, L., & Segal, J.A. (2000). Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 66-83.
20. Epstein, L., & Segal, J.A. (2006). Trumping the First Amendment? Journal of Law & Policy, 21, 81-121.
21. Epstein, L., & Walker, T.G. (2010). Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
22. Eskridge, W.N., Jr. (1991a). Reneging on history? Playing the court/congress/president civil rights game. California Law Review, 79, 613-684.
23. Eskridge, W.N., Jr. (1991b). Overriding Supreme Court statutory interpretation decisions. Yale Law Journal, 101, 331-455.
24. Fazio, R.H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 97-116). New York: Guilford Press.
25. Flango, V., & Ducat, C. (1977). Toward an integration of public law and judicial behavior. Journal of Politics, 39, 41-72.
26. Gelman, A. (2005). Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Bayesian Analysis, 2, 1-19.
27. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S., & Rubin, D.B. (2003). Bayesian data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
28. Gelman, A., & Rubin, D.B. (1992). A single series from the Gibbs sampler provides a false sense of security. In J. Bernardo, J.O. Berger, A. P. David, A. F. M. Smith (Eds.), Bayesian Statistics (pp. 625-631). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
29. George, T.E., & Epstein, L. (1992). On the nature of Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 86, 323-337.
30. Gibson, J.L. (1983). From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior. Political Behavior, 5, 7-49.
31. Gibson, J.L. (1991). Decision making in appellate courts. In J. B. Gates & C. A. Johnson (Eds.), The American courts: A critical assessment (pp. 255-278). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
32. Gill, J. (2002). Bayesian methods: A social and behavioral sciences approach. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
33. Hagle, T.M., & Spaeth, H.J. (1992). The emergence of a new ideology: The business decisions of the Burger Court. Journal of Politics, 54, 120-134.
34. Hausegger, L., & Baum, L. (1999). Inviting congressional action: A study of Supreme Court motivations in statutory interpretation. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 162-185.
35. Hettinger, V.A., Lindquist, S.A., & Martinek, W.L. (2004). Comparing attitudinal and strategic accounts of dissenting behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 123-137.
36. Howard, R.M., & Segal, J.A. (2004). A preference for deference? The Supreme Court and judicial review. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 131-143.
37. Kahn, R. (1999). Institutionalized norms and Supreme Court decision-making: The Rehnquist Court on privacy and religion. In C. W. Clayton & H. Gillman (Eds.), Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches (pp. 175-198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Krosnick, J.A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196-210.
39. Krosnick, J.A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12, 59-92.
40. Lindquist, S.A., & Cross, F. (2005). Empirically testing Dworkin's chain novel theory: Studying the path of precedent. New York University Law Review, 80, 1156-1206.
41. Lindquist, S.A., & Klein, D.E. (2006). The influence of jurisprudential considerations on Supreme Court decision making: A study of conflict cases. Law & Society Review, 40, 135.
42. Lindquist, S.A., & Solberg, R.S. (2007). Judicial review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 71-90.
43. Maltzman, F., Spriggs, J.F., & Wahlbeck, P.J. (2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Maltzman, F., & Wahlbeck, P.J. (2004). A conditional model of opinion assignment on the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 551-563.
45. Martin, A.D. (1998). Strategic decision making and the separation of powers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
46. Martin, A.D., & Quinn, K.M. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Analysis, 10, 134-153.
47. McAtee, A., & McGuire, K.T. (2007). Lawyers, justices, and issue salience: When and how do legal arguments affect the U.S Supreme Court?. Law & Society Review, 41, 259-278.
48. Miller, J.M., & Peterson, D.A.M. (2004). Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. Journal of Politics, 66, 847-867.
49. Ostberg, C.L., & Wetstein, M.E. (1998). Dimensions of attitudes underlying search and seizure decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 31, 767-787.
50. Ostberg, C.L., & Wetstein, M.E. (2006). The Canadian Supreme Court: Attitudinal conflict in right to counsel cases. Political Science Quarterly, 121, 677-697.
51. Ostberg, C.L., & Wetstein, M.E. (2007). Attitudinal decision making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: UBC Press.
52. 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.
53. Pacelle, R.L., Jr. (2003). Between law & politics: The solicitor general and the structuring of race, gender, and reproductive right litigation. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
54. Perry, H.W., Jr. (1991). Deciding to decide: Agenda setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55. Petty, R.E., & Krosnick, J.A. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56. Richards, M.J., & Kritzer, H.M. (2002). Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review, 96, 305-320.
57. Rodriguez, G., & Goldman, N. (2001). Improved estimation procedures for multilevel models with binary response: A case-study. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 164, 339-355.
58. Rohde, D.W., & Spaeth, H.J. (1976). Supreme Court decision making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
59. Rosenberg, G.R. (1992). Judicial independence and reality of political power. The Review of Politics, 54, 369-398.
60. Sala, B.R., & Spriggs, J.F., II. (2004). Designing tests of the Supreme Court and the separation of powers. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 197-208.
61. Salokar, R.M. (1992). The solicitor general. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
62. Schubert, G. (1974). The judicial mind revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
63. Scigliano, R. (1971). The Supreme Court and the presidency. New York: Free Press.
64. Segal, J.A. (1984). Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 1962-81. American Political Science Review, 78, 891-900.
65. Segal, J.A. (1986). Supreme Court justices as human decision makers: An individual-level analysis of the search and seizure cases. Journal of Politics, 47, 938-955.
66. Segal. J.A. (1990). Supreme Court support for the solicitor general: The effect of presidential appointments. Western Political Quarterly, 43, 137-152.
67. Segal, J.A. (1997). Separation-of-powers games in the positive theory of Congress and courts. American Political Science Review, 91, 28-44.
68. Segal, J.A., & Cover, A.D. (1989). Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review, 83, 557-565.
69. Segal, J.A., & Reedy, C.D. (1988). The Supreme Court and sex discrimination: The role of the solicitor general. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 533-568.
70. Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
71. Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
72. Spaeth, H.J. (2006). United States Supreme Court judicial database (The Judicial Research Initiative). Columbia: University of South Carolina.
73. Spaeth, H.J., & Segal, J.A. (1999). Majority rule or minority: Adherence to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.
74. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Thomas, A., Best, N.G., & Lunn, D. (2004). WinBUGS version 1.4.1. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit.
75. Spiller, P.T., & Gely, R. (1992). Congressional control or judicial independence: The determinants of U.S. Supreme Court labor-relations decisions, 1949-1988. RAND Journal of Economics, 23, 463-492.
76. Unah, I., & Hancock, A. (2006). U.S. Supreme Court decision making, case salience, and the attitudinal model. Law & Policy, 28, 295-320.
77. United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
78. Wetstein, M.E., Ostberg, C.L., Songer, D.R., & Johnson, S.W. (2009). Ideological consistency and attitudinal conflict: A comparative analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 763-792.
79. Zorn, C.J. (2001). Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data: A review with applications. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 470-490.