Inferring Multi-Dimensional Ideal Points for US Supreme Court Justices
نویسندگان
چکیده
In Supreme Court parlance and the political science literature, an ideal point positions a justice in a continuous space and can be interpreted as a quantification of the justice’s policy preferences. We present an automated approach to infer such ideal points for justices of the US Supreme Court. This approach combines topic modeling over case opinions with the voting (and endorsing) behavior of justices. Furthermore, given a topic of interest, say the Fourth Amendment, the topic model can be optionally seeded with supervised information to steer the inference of ideal points. Application of this methodology over five years of cases provides interesting perspectives into the leaning of justices on crucial issues, coalitions underlying specific topics, and the role of swing justices in deciding the outcomes of cases.
منابع مشابه
Bayesian Learning about Ideal Points of U . S . Supreme Court Justices , 1953 - 1999 ∗
At the heart of attitudinal and strategic explanations of judicial behavior is the assumption that justices have policy preferences. These preferences have been measured in a handful of ways, including using factor analysis and multidimensional scaling techniques (Schubert, 1965, 1974), looking at past votes in a single policy area (Epstein et al., 1989), content-analyzing newspaper editorials ...
متن کاملBayesian Learning about Ideal Points of U . S . Supreme Court Justices , 1953 - 1999 ∗ Andrew
At the heart of attitudinal and strategic explanations of judicial behavior is the assumption that justices have policy preferences. These preferences have been measured in a handful of ways, including using factor analysis and multidimensional scaling techniques (Schubert, 1965, 1974), looking at past votes in a single policy area (Epstein et al., 1989), content-analyzing newspaper editorials ...
متن کاملAssessing Preference Change on the U.S. Supreme Court
To understand policy-motivated behavior of Supreme Court justices it is necessary to measure their policy preferences. To date, most scholars have assumed the policy preferences of Supreme Court justices remain consistent throughout the course of their careers, and most measures of judicial ideology – such as Segal and Cover (1989) scores – are time invariant. This assumption is facially valid;...
متن کاملPatterns of Supreme Court Decision - Making , 1937 - 2000 ∗
A key explanatory variable in many scientific accounts of the U.S. Supreme Court is the preferred policy position (or ideal point) of each justice. In this paper we measure the ideal points of each justice serving from 1937 to 2000 using a measurement model derived from a simple, uni-dimensional spatial model of votes on the merits. The measures we obtain are dynamic, in that justices’ ideal po...
متن کاملTom Clark and Benjamin Lauderdale , “ Locating Supreme Court Opinions in Doctrine Space ”
Clark and Lauderdale develop a novel approach for orienting Supreme Court opinions in unidimensional policy space. They argue that the most important portion of a Court’s opinion is not its judgment in favor of one party or another, but its reasoning, for it is this reasoning that becomes binding law and shapes the path of American legal development. The authors thus measure the policy orientat...
متن کامل