Policy preferences and legal interpretation

Journal of Law and Courts

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 115-138

  Farnsworth, Ward ^a   Guzior, Dustin ^b   Malani, Anup ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^b Sullivan and Cromwell LLP   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006752201     PISSN: 21646570     EISSN: 21646589     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/668603     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Babcock, Linda, George Loewenstein, Samuel Issacharoff, and Colin Camerer. 1995. “Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining.” American Economic Review 85:1337–43.
2. Braman, Eileen. 2006. “Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of Preferences in Legal Decisionmaking.” Journal of Politics 68:308–21.
3. Easterbrook, Frank H. 2010. “Judges as Honest Agents.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 33 (3): 915–23.
4. Elster, Jon. 1999. Alchemies of the Mind: Rationality and the Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Farnsworth, Ward. 2005. “Signatures of Ideology: The Case of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Docket.” Michigan Law Review 104:67–100.
6. Farnsworth, Ward, Dustin Guzior, and Anup Malani. 2010. “Ambiguity about Ambiguity: An Empirical Inquiry into Legal Interpretation.” Journal of Legal Analysis 2:257–300.
7. Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.
8. Gluck, Abbe R. 2010. “The States as Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation: Methodological Consensus and the New Modified Textualism.” Yale Law Journal 119:1750–1862.
9. Goodman, Kenneth S. 1985. “Unity in Reading.” In Theoretical Models and the Processes of Reading, 3rd. ed., ed. Harry Singer and Robert B. Ruddell. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
10. Loewenstein, George, Samuel Issacharoff, Colin Camerer, and Linda Babcock. 1993. “Self-Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining.” Journal of Legal Studies 22 (1): 135–59.
11. Manning, John F. 2005. “Textualism and Legislative Intent.” Virginia Law Review 91:419–50.
12. Mullins, Morell E., Sr. 2003–4. “Tools Not Rules: The Heuristic Nature of Statutory Interpretation.” Journal in Legislation 30:1–76.
13. Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy De Camp Wilson. 1977a. “The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog y 35 (4): 250–56.
14. Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy De Camp Wilson. 1977b. “Telling More than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes.” Psycholog y Review 84 (3): 231–59.
15. Scalia, Antonin. 1998. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16. Simon, Dan, and Nicholas Scurich. 2011. “Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision Making.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8 (4): 709–27.
17. Smith, Frank. 1994. Understanding Reading. 5th ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Solan, Lawrence M. 1998. “Law, Language and Lenity.” William and Mary Law Review 40 (1): 57–144.
19. “Textualism as Fair Notice.” 2009. Harvard Law Review 123:542–63.
20. Vermeule, Adrian. 1998. “Legislative History and the Limits of Judicial Competence: The Untold Story of Holy Trinity Church.” Stanford Law Review 50 (6): 1833–96.
21. Vermeule, Adrian. 2009. “Foreword: System Effects and the Constitution.” Harvard Law Review 123 (4): 64–65.