Identifying the median justice on the Supreme Court through multidimensional scaling : Analysis of “ natural courts
نویسنده
چکیده
Given the fundamental unidimensionality in the data on Supreme Court voting patterns 1951–1993 we observe, we are able to determine the identity of “median” members of each court in a fashion that does not require subjective coding of the extent to which particular cases reflect left-right issues. Also, while the exact numerical values of MDS-obtained locations cannot be compared across different “natural courts”, the positions of Supreme Court justices across their careers relative to the courts on which they served can be traced. Our data show overwhelming quantified evidence of a very strong rightward drift (relative to our MDS defined dimensions) in the composition of the court as we move from the Warren Court to the Burger Court, and again as we move from the Burger Court to the Rehnquist Court.
منابع مشابه
مرجع صالح برای رسیدگی به دعوای مسئولیت بطرفیت دولت
Apart from believe to be conflict or comfortability between nations and government, having regard to developing of Government functions, it is shown increasing of taking decisions and acts by government. These decisions and acts may both meet missions of government and provide with advance and improve for people and country, while could be caused damages and loss for some people and could re...
متن کاملShaping Supreme Court Policy Through Appointments: The Impact of a New Justice
Different theories of decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court make radically different predictions about the impact of a new Justice on the Court. Using a new method for locating average majority opinion locations in a policy space, we test the predictions in a case study: the replacement of Justice Potter Stewart by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. We find a direct effect from the new Justice: O...
متن کاملProtean Statutory Interpretation in the Courts of Appeals
This Article is the first in-depth empirical and doctrinal analysis of differences in statutory interpretation between the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. It is also among the first to anticipate how the Supreme Court’s interpretive approach may shift with the passing of Justice Scalia. We begin by identifying factors that may contribute to interpretive divergence between the two judic...
متن کاملJustice on the Fly: The Danger of Errant Deportations
The government may deport an immigrant appealing a deportation order in federal court even before the court rules on the case, unless the court issues a stay of removal. In its 2009 decision in Nken v. Holder, the Supreme Court clarified that the legal standard for stays of removal is the same test courts use for preliminary injunctions. Yet Justice Kennedy expressed frustration that the Court ...
متن کاملPregnancy Discrimination in the Wake of Young v. Ups
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 133 I. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 ..................................................................................................... 136 A. Pregnancy Discrimination Pre-PDA .....................................................
متن کامل