Ducking Trouble: Congressionally Induced Selection Bias in the Supreme Court's Agenda
نویسندگان
چکیده
Existing studies of congressional influence on Supreme Court decision making have largely failed to recognize the fact that the Court has a discretionary docket. We model the effects of congressional preferences on the certiorari decision and find strong evidence that the Court’s constitutional agenda is systematically influenced by Congress. The Court’s docket is significantly less likely to contain cases wherein there are large congressionally induced deviations between what the Court would like to do, and what it can do in its final rulings. This selection bias in the Court’s docket can lead to considerable uncertainty in estimating the effects of congressional constraint on the Court’s final decisions, including a failure to properly reject the null hypothesis of no constraint.
منابع مشابه
Criminalizing the American Juvenile Court
Progressive reformers envisioned a therapeutic juvenile court that made individualized treatment decisions in the child's "best interests." The Supreme Court's Gault decision provided the impetus for transforming the juvenile court from an informal welfare agency into a scaled-down criminal court. Since Gault, the juvenile court procedures increasingly resemble those of adult courts, although i...
متن کاملI. as a Litigation Matter, the Supreme Court's Gte Sylvania and Later Opinions Make Clear the Pnb Presumption Will Be Overruled and Thus the Hmg Must Be Replaced
These comments are respectfully submitted both as to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines ("HMG") generally, and also to questions 1-10., 12-15. They show that as a litigation matter the current HMG must be replaced because they are dependent on the PNB presumption, which will be overruled under the Supreme Court's GTE Sylvania and later presumption cases, and that new merger guidelines (and antitr...
متن کاملThe Supreme Court's limitation of managed-care liability.
This article summarizes and critiques the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, which limited managed care organizations' liability for negligent decisions about the care of patients in private employer-sponsored health plans governed by ERISA. It contrasts the Court's dichotomous view of health benefit plans, in which insurers administer contracts and treating physician...
متن کاملTaking the People Seriously ( I )
The subtitle of Professor Goldstein's timely and important book is "The Supreme Court's Obligation to Maintain the Constitution as Something We the People Can Understand." Essentially, Professor Goldstein contends that the Court must explain its constitutional decisions in a manner that is comprehensible to the public because continuing public consent is the true source of the Court's legitimac...
متن کاملDolly and Alice
The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In re Roslin Institute, rejecting patent claims to mammals cloned from somatic cells, was rendered about a month before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The Alice opinion explicitly sets out the standard for determining whether an invention falls within statutory patent...
متن کامل