I Respectfully Dissent: Consensus, Agendas, and Policymaking on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1888-1999
Scholars have been intrigued by the abrupt change in the rate of nonconsensual opinions that the Supreme Court has published over time, which substantially increased beginning with the battles concerning the court's New Deal transition in the 1930s. Notwithstanding, none of the prior studies on this topic has made any link, whether theoretical or empirical, between the Supreme Court's issuance of these special opinions and the justices' policy preferences. We utilize fractional cointegration to examine the relationship between consensus, agendas, and decisionmaking on the Supreme Court. We find that there is a systematic interrelation between the justices' policy preferences and their issuance of nonconsensual opinions that is dependent upon the policy agenda before the court. In turn, this connection influences the court's policy outcomes, demonstrating that the justices' behavior regarding nonconsensual opinion writing is a classic example of judicial policymaking. Copyright 2004 by The Policy Studies Association..
Year of publication: |
2004
|
---|---|
Authors: | Hurwitz, Mark S. ; Lanier, Drew Noble |
Published in: |
Review of Policy Research. - Policy Studies Organization - IPSO, ISSN 1541-1338. - Vol. 21.2004, 3, p. 429-445
|
Publisher: |
Policy Studies Organization - IPSO |
Saved in:
freely available
Saved in favorites
Similar items by person
-
The Brethren as Baristas : Percolation and Spillover within the Supreme Court's Agenda
Hendershot, Marcus E., (2011)
-
Does Accountability Vary? Examining the Tenure of State Supreme Court Justices
Curry, Todd A., (2010)
-
Revisiting the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms in the U.S. Supreme Court
Hendershot, Marcus E., (2010)
- More ...