Obscenity, libertarian values, and decision making in the supreme court

American Politics Research

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 1990, Pages 47-67

  McGuire, Kevin T ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930560262     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: 15523373     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X9001800103     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Baum, Lawrence. 1988. Measuring policy change in the U. S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 82: 905-12.
2. Black, Henry Campbell. 1979. Black's law dictionary. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
3. Bullock, Charles S., III, and Charles M. Lamb. 1982. Toward a theory of civil rights implementation. Policy Perspectives 2: 376-93.
4. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright, 1988. Organized interests and agenda setting in the U. S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 82: 1109-28.
5. Caplan, Lincoln. 1987. The tenth justice. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
6. Casper, Jonathan D. 1972. Lawyers before the Warren Court: Civil liberties and civil rights, 1957-1966. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
7. Croyle, James L. 1983. Measuring and explaining disparities in felony sentences: Courtroom work group factors and race, sex, and socioeconomic influences in sentence severity. Political Behavior 5: 135-53.
8. Dietz, Robert L., and Allan B. Taylor, eds. 1975. Note: Community standards, class actions, and obscenity under Miller v. California. Harvard Law Review 88: 1838-74.
9. Hagan, John. 1974. Extra-legal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law and Society Review 8: 337-63.
10. Ivers, Gregg, and Karen O'Connor. 1987. Friends as foes: The amicus curiae participation and effectiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in criminal cases, 1969-1982. Law and Policy 9: 161-78.
11. Kalven, Harry. 1960. The metaphysics of the law of obscenity. In 1960 Supreme Court Review, edited by Philip B. Kurland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Kobylka, Joseph F. 1987. A court-related context for group litigation: Libertarian groups and obscenity litigation. Journal of Politics 49: 1061-78.
13. Kort, Fred. 1957. Predicting Supreme Court decisions mathematically: A quantitative analysis of the “right to counsel” cases. American Political Science Review 51: 1-12.
14. Kort, Fred. 1973. Regression analysis and discriminant analysis: An application of R. A. Fisher's theorem to data in political science. American Political Science Review 67: 555-59.
15. Lockhart, William B. 1975. Escape from the chill of uncertainty: Explicit sex and the First Amendment. Georgia Law Review 9: 533-87.
16. Lockhart, William B., and Robert C. McClure. 1954. Literature, the law of obscenity, and the Constitution. Minnesota Law Revcew 38: 295-395.
17. Madison, James. (1787) 1961. The Federalist papers. New York: New American Library of World Literature.
18. O'Connor, Karen, and Lee Epstein. 1981-82. Amicus curiae participation in the U. S. Supreme Court: An appraisal of Hakman's folklore. Law and Society Review 16: 311-20.
19. Partridge, Anthony, and William B. Eldridge. 1978. The Second Circuit sentencing study. In Amerccan court systems: Readings in judicial process and behavior. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
20. Perry, H.W., Jr. 1986. Deciding to decide in the U. S. Supreme Court: Bargaining, accommodation, and roses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.
21. Schauer, Frederic F. 1976. The law of obscenity. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
22. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review 29: 461-79.
23. 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: 938-55.
24. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cheryl D. Reedy. 1988. The Supreme Court and sex discrimination: The role of the Solicitor General. Western Political Quarterly 41: 553-68.
25. Songer, Donald. 1979. Concern for policy outputs as a cue for Supreme Court decisions on certiorari. Journal of Politccs 41: 1185-94.
26. Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin, and Daniel Rosen. 1963. The Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction: Cue theory. In Judicial decision making, edited by Glendon Schubert New York: Free Press.
27. Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1984. The Supreme Court's certiorari decisions: Conflict as a predictive variable. American Political Science Review 78: 901-11.