The solicitor general and the United States supreme court: Executive branch influence and judicial decisions

The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1-181

  Black, Ryan C ^a   Owens, Ryan J ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925147100     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139058391     Document Type: Book

References (203)

1. Ai, Chunrong, and Edward C. Norton. 2003. “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models.” Economic Letters 80: 123–29.
2. Bailey, Michael A., 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. Bailey, Michael A., and Forrest Maltzman. 2008. “Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 102 (3): 369–84.
4. Bartels, Brandon L. 2009. “The Constraining Capacity of Legal Doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 103 (3): 474–95.
5. Baum, Lawrence. 2009. The Supreme Court. 10th Ed. Washington, D.C., Congressional Quarterly Press.
6. Benesh, Sara C., Saul Brenner, and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. “Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices.” American Politics Research 30 (3): 219–34.
7. Benson, Robert W., and Joan B. Kessler. 1987. “Legalese v. Plain Language: An Empirical Study of Persuasion and Credibility in Appellate Brief Writing.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 20: 301–22.
8. Bergara, Mario, Barak Richman, and Pablo T. Spiller. 2003. “Modeling Supreme Court Decision Making: The Congressional Constraint.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (2): 247–80.
9. Berry, William D., Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt, and Justin Esarey. 2010. “Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?” American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 248–66.
10. Black, Ryan C., and Timothy R. Johnson. 2008. “Judicial Politics and the Search for the ‘Holy Grail’ of Salience.” Paper presented at the 2008 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA.
11. Black, Ryan C., Anthony J. Madonna, Ryan J. Owens, and Michael S. Lynch. 2007. “Adding Recess Appointments to the President’s ‘Tool Chest’ of Unilateral Powers.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (4): 645–54.
12. Black, Ryan C., and Ryan J. Owens. 2009a. “Agenda-Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1062–75.
13. Black, Ryan C., and Ryan J. Owens. 2009b. “Analyzing the Reliability of Supreme Court Justices’ Agenda Setting Records.” Justice System Journal 30 (3): 254–65.
14. Black, Ryan C., and Ryan J. Owens. Forthcoming. “Solicitor General Influence and the United States Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly. Available at: http://prg.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/01/26/1065912910388185.abstract.
15. Black, Ryan C., Sarah A. Treul, Timothy R. Johnson, and Jerry Goldman. 2011. “Emotions, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 73 (2): 572–81.
16. Black, Ryan C., and Christina L. Boyd. Forthcoming 2012. “US Supreme Court Agenda Setting and the Role of Litigant Status.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 28 (1). Advanced online access available at http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ewq002?ijkey=54Ko1n3PGcmHTjL…keytype=ref.
17. Blackwell, Matthew, Stefano Iacus, Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro. 2009. “CEM: Coarsened Exact Matching in Stata.” Stata Journal 9 (4): 524–46.
18. Blackwell, Matthew, Stefano Iacus, Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro. 2010. “CEM: Coarsened Exact Matching in Stata.” Extended user’s guide, February 22. http://gking.harvard.edu/files/cem-stata.pdf.
19. Bloch, Sus an Low. 1989. “The Early Role of the Attorney General in Our Constitutional Scheme: In the Beginning There Was Pragmatism.” Duke Law Journal 1989: 561–653.
20. Bloomfield, Louis A. 2009. “WCopyfind (Version 2.7).” Windows computer program. http://www.plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu/Wsoftware.html.
21. Boucher, Robert L. Jr., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1995. “Supreme Court Justices as Strategic Decision Makers: Aggressive Grants and Defensive Denials on the Vinson Court.” Journal of Politics 57 (3): 824–37.
22. Boyd, Christina L., Lee Epstein, and Andrew D. Martin. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 389–411.
23. Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analysis.” Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82.
24. Brand, Norman. 1979. “Legal Writing, Reasoning and Research: An Introduction.” Albany Law Review 44: 292–97.
25. Brenner, Saul. 1979. “The New Certiorari Game.” Journal of Politics 41 (2): 649–55.
26. Brenner, Saul, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995. Stare Indecisis: The Alteration of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1946–1992. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Brenner, Saul, and Marc Stier. 1996. “Retesting Segal and Spaeth’s Stare Decisis Model.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1036–48.
28. Brudney, James J., and Corey Ditslear. 2005. “Canons of Construction and the Elusive Quest for Neutral Reasoning.” Vanderbilt Law Review 58 (1): 1–116.
29. 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.
30. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1998. “Organized Interests before the Supreme Court: Setting the Agenda.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Boston, MA.
31. Caldeira, Gregory A., John R. Wright, and Christopher J. W. Zorn. 1999. “Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15 (3): 549–72.
32. Calvert, Randall L. 1985. “The Value of Biased Information: A Rational Choice Model of Political Advice.” Journal of Politics 47 (2): 530–55.
33. Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. New York: Knopf.
34. Carrubba, Clifford, Barry Friedman, Andrew D. Martin, and Georg Vanberg. 2007. “Does the Median Justice Control the Content of Supreme Court Opinions?” Paper presented at the second annual conference on Empirical Legal Studies. New York, NY.
35. Chamberlain, Ronald S. 1987. “Mixing Politics and Justice: The Office of the Solicitor General.” Journal of Law and Politics 4: 379–428.
36. Charrow, Robert P., and Veda R. Charrow. 1979. “Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions.” Columbia Law Review 79 (7): 1306–74.
37. Clement, Paul D. 2005. “Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Paul D. Clement to be Solicitor General of the United States.” Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (109th Congress, First Session). April 27. Available online at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/109hrg/21706.pdf.
38. Coffin, Frank M. 1994. On Appeal: Courts, Lawyering, and Judging. New York: W.W. Norton.
39. Coleman, Meri, and T. L. Liau. 1975. “A Computer Readability Formula Designed for Machine Scoring.” Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (2): 283–84.
40. 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.
41. Collins, Paul M., Jr. 2007. “Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 55–70.
42. Collins, Paul M., Jr. 2008a. “Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5 (1): 143–70.
43. Collins, Paul M., Jr. 2008b. Friends of the Court: Interest Groups and Judical Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Cooper, James L. 1990. “The Solicitor General and the Evolution of Activism.” Indiana Law Journal 65: 675–96.
45. Corley, Pamela C. 2008. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties’ Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (3): 468–78.
46. Corley, Pamela C., Paul M. Collins, Jr., and Bryan Calvin. 2011. “Lower Court Influence on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content.” Journal of Politics 73 (1): 31–44.
47. Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
48. Cozine, R. Kirkland. 1994. “The Emergence of Written Appellate Briefs in the Nineteenth-century United States.” American Journal of Legal History 38 (4): 482–530.
49. Days, Drew S. 1995. “The Solicitor General and the American Legal Ideal.” Southern Methodist Law Review 49: 73–82.
50. Deen, Rebecca, Joseph Ignagni, and James Meernik. 2003. “The Solicitor General as Amicus 1953–2000: How Influential?” Judicature 87 (2): 60–71.
51. Deen, Rebecca. E., Joseph Ignagni, and James Meernik. 2005. “Individual Justices and the Solicitor General: The Amicus Curiae Cases 1953–2000.” Judicature 89 (2): 68–77.
52. Dreeben, Michael. 2010. “Lecture with Michael Dreeben, Criminal Deputy Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice.” Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmeHl4TryIw.
53. Ehrenberg, Suzanne. 2004. “Embracing the Writing-Centered Legal Process.” Iowa Law Review 89: 1160–99.
54. Epstein, Lee, Daniel E. Ho, Gary King, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2005. “The Supreme Court During Crisis: How War Affects Only Non-war Cases.” New York University Law Review 80 (1): 1–116.
55. Epstein, Lee, and Joseph F. Kobylka. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill, NC. University of North Carolina Press.
56. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
57. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1999. “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutional Approaches, ed. Cornell W. Clayton and Howard Gillman 215–35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58. Epstein, Lee, Jack Knight, and Andrew D. Martin. 2001. “The Supreme Court as a Strategic National Policymaker.” Emory Law Journal 50 (2): 583–612.
59. Epstein, Lee, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2007. “Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?” Northwestern University Law Review 101 (4): 1483–1542.
60. Epstein, Lee, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland. 2007. “The Judicial Common Space.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23 (2): 303–25.
61. Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66–83.
62. Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Harold J. Spaeth. 2007. “Digital Archive of the Papers of Harry A. Blackmun.” http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/BlackmunArchive/.
63. Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas G. Walker. 2007. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, and Developments. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
64. Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Timothy Johnson. 1996. “The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 90 (4): 845–52
65. Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G. Walker. 2005. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: A Short Course. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
66. Eskridge, William N., Jr. 1991. “Reneging on History? Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game.” California Law Review 79 (3): 613–84.
67. Fahy, Charles. 1942. “The Office of the Solicitor General.” American Bar Association Journal 28: 20–22.
68. Fisher, Louis. 1990. “Is the Solicitor General an Executive or Judicial Agent? Caplan’s Tenth Justice.” Law and Social Inquiry 15 (2): 305–20.
69. Fleiss, Joseph L., and Jacob Cohen. 1973. “The Equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as Measures of Reliability.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 33 (3): 613–19.
70. Fowler, James H., Timothy R. Johnson, James F. Spriggs II, Sangick Jeon, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2007. “Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Supreme Court Precedents.” Political Analysis 15 (3): 324–46.
71. Fraley, George. 1996. “Is the Fox Watching the Henhouse? The Administration’s Control of FEC Litigation through the Solicitor General.” Administrative Law Journal of the American University 9: 1215–72.
72. Franzese, Robert J. 1999. “Partially Independent Central Banks, Politically Responsive Governments, and Inflation.” American Journal of Political Science 43: 681–706.
73. Friedman, Barry. 2006. “Taking Law Seriously.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (2): 261–76.
74. Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Changes.” Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95–160.
75. Gates, John B., and Glenn A. Phelps. 1996. “Intentionalism in Constitutional Opinions.” Political Research Quarterly 48: 245–61.
76. Gelman, Andrew, and Hal Stern. 2006. “The Difference Between “Significant”‘and “Not Significant” Is Not Itself Statistically Significant.” American Statistician 60 (4): 328–31.
77. Giles, Michael W., Virginia A. Hettinger, and Todd Peppers. 2001. “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (3): 623–41.
78. 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 (2): 465–504.
79. Goodrich, Herbert F. 1967. A Case on Appeal - A Judge’s View. Philadelphia, PA: Joint Committee on Continuing Legal Education of the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association.
80. Greiner, D. James, and Cassandra W. Pattanayak. Forthcoming 2011. “Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance: What Difference Does Representation Make?” Yale Law Journal 121.
81. Grilli, Vittorio, Donato Masciandaro, and Guido Tabellini. 1991. “Political and Monetary Institutions and Public Finance Policies in the Industrial Countries.” Economic Policy 13: 341–92.
82. Gunning, Robert. 1952. The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
83. Hamilton, Clyde H. 1999. “Effective Appellate Brief Writing.” South Carolina Law Review 50: 581–89.
84. Hansford, Thomas G., and James F. Spriggs II. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
85. Hart, Henry M., Jr. 1959. “The Supreme Court 1958 Term-Forward: The Time Chart of the Justices.” Harvard Law Review 73: 84–240.
86. Harvey, Anna, and Barry Friedman. 2006. “Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraint on the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31 (4): 533–62.
87. Hettinger, Virginia A., and Christopher Zorn. 2005. “Explaining the Incidence and Timing of Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30 (1): 5–28.
88. Ho, Daniel E., Kosuke Imai, Gary King, and Elizabeth A. Stuart. 2006. “Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference.” Unpublished manuscript.
89. Hoffer, Peter C., Williamjames H. Hoffer, and N. E. H. Hull. 2007. The Supreme Court: An Essential History. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
90. Hume, Robert J. 2007. “Administrative Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court: The Importance of Legal Signals.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4 (3): 625–49.
91. Iacus, Stefano M., Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro. 2009. “CEM: Software for Coarsened Exact Matching.” Journal of Statistical Software 30 (9): 1–27.
92. Iacus, Stefano M., Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro. 2010. “CEM: Software for Coarsened Exact Matching.” Extended user’s guide, February 22. http://gking.harvard.edu/files/cem.pdf.
93. Iacus, Stefano M., Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro. 2011a. “Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 106 (493): 345–61.
94. Iacus, Stefano M., Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro. 2011b. “Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching.” Political Analysis Advance Access published August 23, 2011, accessible at: http://gking.harvard.edu/files/political_analysis-2011-iacus-pan_mpr013.pdf.
95. Ignagni, Joesph, and James Meernik. 1994. “Explaining Congressional Attempts to Reverse Supreme Court Decisions.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (2): 353–71.
96. Jenkins, John A. 1983. “The Solicitor General’s Winning Ways.” American Bar Association Journal 69: 734–39.
97. Jeong, Gyung-Ho, Gary Miller, and Andrew C. Sobel. 2009. “Political Compromise and Bureaucratic Structure: The Political Origins of the Federal Reserve System.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 25: 442–98.
98. Johnson, Timothy R. 2003. “The Supreme Court, the Solicitor General, and the Separation of Powers.” American Politics Research 31 (4): 426–51.
99. Johnson, Timothy R. 2004. Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York Press.
100. Johnson, Timothy R., Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F. Spriggs II. 2006. “The Influence of Oral Argumentation before the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 99–113.
101. Johnson, Timothy R., James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2007. “Oral Advocacy Before the United State Supreme Court: Does it Affect the Justices’ Decisions?” Washington University Law Review 85 (3): 457–527.
102. Jurafsky, Daniel, and James H. Martin. 2008. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Upper Saddle River, N.J. Pearson Prentice Hall.
103. Kam, Cindy D., and Robert J. Franzese Jr. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
104. Keefer, Philip, and David Stasavage. 2003. “The Limits of Delegation: Veto Players, Central Bank Independence, and the Credibility of Monetary Policy.” American Political Science Review 97: 407–23.
105. Kincaid, J. Peter, Robert P. Fishburne, Jr., Richard L. Rogers, and Brad S. Chissom, 1975. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Forumla) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Research Branch Report 8–75. Springfield, Virginia.
106. King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2001a. “Explaining Rare Events in International Relations.” International Organization 55 (3): 693–715.
107. King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2001b. “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” Political Analysis 9 (2): 137–63.
108. King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 347–61.
109. Klein, David, and Darby Morrisroe. 1999. “The Prestige and Influence of Individual Judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Legal Studies 19 (4): 371–91.
110. Knight, Jack, and Lee Epstein. 1996. “The Norm of Stare Decisis.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1018–35.
111. Krehbiel, Keith. 1995. “Cosponsors and Wafflers from A to Z.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 906–23.
112. Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
113. Kritzer, Herbert M., and Mark J. Richards. 2003. “Jurisprudential Regimes and Supreme Court Decisionmaking: The Lemon Regime and Establishment Clause Cases.” Law and Society Review 37 (4): 827–40.
114. Kritzer, Herbert M., and Mark J. Richards. 2005. “The Influence of Law in the Supreme Court’s Search-and-Seizure Jurisprudence.” American Politics Research 33 (1): 33–55.
115. Landis, J. Richard, and Gary G. Koch. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33 (1): 159–74.
116. Lax, Jeffrey R., and Charles M. Cameron. 2007. “Bargaining and Opinion Assignment on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23 (2): 276–302.
117. Lax, Jeffrey R., and Kelly Rader. 2010. “Legal Constraints on Supreme Court Decision Making: Do Jurisprudential Regimes Exist?” Journal of Politics 71 (2): 273–84.
118. Lee, Rex. 1986. “Lawyering for the Government: Politics, Polemics, and Principle.” Ohio State Law Journal 47 (3): 595–601.
119. Lemos, Margaret H. 2009. “The Solicitor General as Mediator between Court and Agency.” Michigan State Law Review 2009: 185–223.
120. Lewis, David E. 2003. Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design: Political Insulation in the United States Government Bureaucracy, 1946–1997. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
121. Luse, Jennifer, Geoffrey McGovern, Wendy L. Martinek, and Sara C. Benesh. 2009. “‘Such Inferior Courts:’ Compliance by Circuits with Jurisprudential Regimes.” American Politics Research 37 (1): 75–106.
122. 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.
123. Maltzman, Forrest, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2003. “Salience or Politics: New York Times Coverage of the Supreme Court.” Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
124. Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–99.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53.
125. Martineau, Robert J., Kent Sinclair, Michael E. Solomine, and Randy J. Holland. 2005. Appellate Practice and Procedure. St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.
126. McAtee, Andrea, and Kevin T. McGuire. 2007. “Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law & Society Review 41 (2): 259–78.
127. McConnell, Michael W. 1988. “The Rule of Law and the Role of the Solicitor General.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 21: 1105–18.
128. McCree, Wade H., Jr. 1981. “The Solicitor General and His Client.” Washington University Law Quarterly 59: 337–48.
129. McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” Journal of Politics 57 (1): 187–96.
130. McGuire, Kevin T. 1998. “Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (2): 505–26.
131. McGuire, Kevin T., and Barbara Palmer. 1995. “Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 691–702.
132. McGuire, Kevin T., and Barbara Palmer. 1996. “Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 90 (4): 853–65.
133. McLaughlin, G. Harry. 1969. “SMOG Grading-A New Readability Formula.” Journal of Reading 12 (8): 639–46.
134. Meinhold, Stephen S., and Steven A. Shull. 1998. “Policy Congruence between the President and Solicitor General.” Political Research Quarterly 51: 527–37.
135. Michel, Paul R. 1998. “Effective Appellate Advocacy.” Litigation 24 (4): 19–23.
136. Miller, Gary. 1989. “Confiscation, Credible Commitment and Progressive Reform.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 145: 686–92.
137. Moe, Terry M. 1987. “Interests, Institutions, and Positive Theory: The Politics of the NLRB.” Studies in American Political Development 2: 236–99.
138. Moe, Terry M., and William G. Howell. 1999. “The Presidential Power of Unitary Action.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15 (1): 132–79.
139. Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
140. Nicholson, Chris, and Paul M. Collins Jr. 2008. “The Solicitor General’s Amicus Curiae Strategies in the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research 36 (3): 382–415.
141. North, Douglas, and Barry Weingast. 1989. “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England.” Journal of Economic History 49: 803–32.
142. Owens, Ryan J. 2010. “The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 412–27.
143. Owens, Ryan J., and Lee Epstein. 2005. “Amici Curiae during the Rehnquist Years.” Judicature 89 (3): 127–33.
144. Owens, Ryan J., and David A. Simon. Forthcoming 2012. “Explaining the Supreme Courts Docket Size.” William and Mary Law Review 53(4).
145. Pacelle, Richard. 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.
146. Pacelle, Richard. 2006. “Amicus Curiae or Amicus Praesidentis - Reexamining the Role of the Solicitor General in Filing Amici.” Judicature 89 (6): 317–25.
147. Palmer, Jan. 1982. “An Econometric Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Certiorari Decisions.” Public Choice 39: 387–98.
148. Perry, H. W., Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
149. Peterson, Mark A. 1992. “The Presidency and Organized Interests: White House Patterns of Interest Group Liaison.” American Political Science Review 86 (3): 612–25.
150. Phelps, Glenn A., and John B. Gates. 1991. “The Myth of Jurisprudence: Interpretative Theory in the Constitutional Opinions of Justice Rehnquist and Brennan.” Santa Clara Law Review 31 (3): 567–96.
151. Pittoni, Mario. 1991. Brief Writing and Argumentation. 3rd ed. Brooklyn, NY: Foundation Press.
152. Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court. New York: Macmillan.
153. Provine, Doris Marie. 1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
154. Rehnquist, William H. 2001. The Supreme Court. Rev. and updated ed. New York: Vintage Books.
155. Richards, Mark J. and Herbert M. Kritzer. 2002. “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 96 (2): 305–20.
156. Richards, Mark J., Joseph L. Smith, and Herbert M. Kritzer. 2006. “Does Chevon Matter?” Law & Policy 28 (4): 444–69.
157. Riker, William H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
158. Salokar, Rebecca Mae. 1992. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
159. Scalia, Antonin, and Bryan A. Garner. 2008. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. St. Paul, MN Thomson West.
160. Scheb, John M. II, and William Lyons. 2000. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly 81 (4): 928–40.
161. Scigliano, Robert. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.
162. Segal, Jeffrey. 1988. “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Court: A Research Note.” Western Political Quarterly 41 (1): 135–44.
163. 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.
164. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1996. “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 971–1003.
165. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
166. 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.
167. Smith, E. A., and R. J. Senter. 1967. Automated Readability Index. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories Paper AMRL-TR-66-220.
168. Smith, Steven S. 1989. Call to Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
169. Sokol, Ronald P. 1967. Language and Litigation: A Portrait of the Appellate Brief. Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.
170. Songer, Donald R. 1979. “Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions of Certiorari.” Journal of Politics 41 (4): 1185–94.
171. Songer, Donald R., Ashlyn Kuersten, and Erin Kaheny. 2000. “Why the Haves Don’t Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici Curiae for the Disadvantaged.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (3): 537–56.
172. Songer, Donald R., and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1992. “Who Wins on Appeal? Upper- dogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (1): 235–58.
173. Songer, Donald R., Reginald S. Sheehan, and Susan Brodie Haire. 1999. “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter’s Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925–1988.” Law and Society Review 33 (4): 811–32.
174. Songer, Donald R., and Stefanie A. Lindquist. 1996. “Not the Whole Story: The Impact of Justices’ Values on Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1049–63.
175. Spaeth, Harold J. 1964. “The Judicial Restraint of Mr. Justice Frankfurter - Myth or Reality.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 8 (1): 22–38.
176. Spaeth, Harold J. 2006. The Original United States Supreme Court Judicial Database 1953–2005 Terms. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
177. 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.
178. Spiller, Pablo T., and Rafael Gely. 1992. “Congressional Control or Judicial Independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor-Relations Decisions, 1949–1988.” RAND Journal of Economics 23 (4): 463–92.
179. Spriggs, James F., II. 1996. “The Supreme Court and Federal Administrative Agencies: A Resource-Based Theory and Analysis of Judicial Impact.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1122–51.
180. Spriggs, James F. II, and Thomas G. Hansford. 2000. “Measuring Legal Change: The Reliability and Validity of Shepard’s Citations.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (2): 327–41.
181. Spriggs, James F. II, and Thomas G. Hansford. 2001. “Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent.” Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1091–1111.
182. Spriggs, James F. II, and Thomas G. Hansford. 2002. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s Incorporation and Interpretation of Precedent.” Law and Society Review 36 (1): 139–60.
183. Spriggs, James F. II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (2): 365–86.
184. Staton, Jeffrey K., and Georg Vanberg. 2008. “The Value of Vagueness, Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 504–19.
185. Stern, Robert L. 1989. Appellate Practice in the United States. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
186. Stern, Robert L., Eugene Gressman, Stephen M. Shapiro, and Kenneth S. Geller. 2002. Supreme Court Practice. 8th ed. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
187. Sundquist, Matthew Lee. 2010. “Learned in Litigation: Former Solicitors General in the Supreme Court Bar.” Charleston Law Review 5 (1): 59–97.
188. Swisher, Carl B. 1974. The Taney Period. New York: Macmillan.
189. Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, and David Rosen. 1963. “The Supreme Court’s Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” In Judicial Decision-Making, ed. Glendon A. Schubert, 111–32. New York: Free Press.
190. Tate, Albert, Jr. 1978. “The Art of Brief Writing: What a Judge Wants to Read.” Litigation 4 (2): 11–15.
191. Teply, Larry L. 1990. Legal Writing, Analysis, and Oral Argument. St. Paul, MN: West.
192. Thompson, David C., and Melanie F. Watchell. 2009. “An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.” George Mason Law Review 16: (2): 237–302.
193. Totenberg, Nina. 2009. “Chandler v. Miller: Double Indemnity.” In A Good Quarrel: America’s Top Legal Reporters Share Stories from Inside the Supreme Court, eds. Timothy R. Johnson and Jerry Goldman, 110–24. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
194. Ulmer, S. Sidney, William Hintz, and Louise Kirklosky. 1972. “The Decision to Grant or Deny Certiorari: Further Considerations of Cue Theory.” Law and Society Review 6 (4): 637–44.
195. van R. Springer, James. 1984. “Some Suggestions on Preparing Briefs on the Merits in the Supreme Court of the United States.” Catholic University Law Review 33: 593–602.
196. Vose, Clement E. 1959. Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
197. Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1997. “The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change.” Journal of Politics 59 (3): 778–802.
198. Ward, Artemus, and David L. Weiden. 2006. Sorcerers’ Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press.
199. Waxman, Seth P. 1998. “Presenting the Case of the United States As It Should Be: The Solicitor General in Historical Context.” Journal of Supreme Court History 1998: 3–25.
200. Wedeking, Justin P. 2010. “Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (3): 617–31.
201. Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2009. “The Tenth Justice? Consequences of Politicization in the Solicitor General’s Office.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 224–37.
202. Woodward, Bob, and Scott Armstrong. 1979. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon and Schuster.
203. Zorn, Christopher J. W. 2002. “U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 55 (1): 145–66.