Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court
- 1 August 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in American Political Science Review
- Vol. 102 (3), 369-384
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055408080283
Abstract
Judicial scholars often struggle to disentangle the effects of law and policy preferences on U.S. Supreme Court decision making. We employ a new approach to measuring the effect—if any—of the law on justices' decisions. We use positions taken on Supreme Court cases by members of Congress and presidents to identify policy components of voting. Doing so enables us to isolate the effects of three legal doctrines: adherence to precedent, judicial restraint, and a strict interpretation of the First Amendment's protection of speech clause. We find considerable evidence that legal factors play an important role in Supreme Court decision making. We also find that the effect of legal factors varies across justices.Keywords
This publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit:
- Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraints on the Supreme Court's Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000Legislative Studies Quarterly, 2006
- Designing Tests of the Supreme Court and the Separation of PowersPolitical Research Quarterly, 2004
- A Preference for Deference? The Supreme Court and Judicial ReviewPolitical Research Quarterly, 2004
- A Preference for Deference? The Supreme Court and Judicial ReviewPolitical Research Quarterly, 2004
- Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and CourtsAmerican Political Science Review, 1997
- Norms, Dragons, and Stare Decisis: A ResponseAmerican Journal of Political Science, 1996
- Ideological Patterns in the Justices' Voting in the Burger Court's Business CasesThe Journal of Politics, 1993
- A positive theory of statutory interpretationInternational Review of Law and Economics, 1992
- Cobalt complexes in equilibriumJournal of Chemical Education, 1980
- Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional LawHarvard Law Review, 1959