Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:13:59.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Jeffrey A. Segal
Jeffrey A. Segal*
Affiliation:
State University of New Yorkat Stony Brook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The hallmark of the new positive theories of the judiciary is that Supreme Court justices will frequently defer to the preferences of Congress when making decisions, particularly in statutory cases in which it is purportedly easy for Congress to reverse the Court. Alternatively, judicial attitudinalists argue that the institutional structures facing the Court allow the justices to vote their sincere policy preferences. This paper compares these sincere and sophisticated models of voting behavior by Supreme Court justices. Using a variety of tests on the votes of Supreme Court justices in statutory cases decided between 1947 and 1992, I find some evidence of sophisticated behavior, but most tests suggest otherwise. Moreover, direct comparisons between the two models unambiguously favor the attitudinal model. I conclude that the justices overwhelmingly engage in rationally sincere behavior.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 28 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959).Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1988. “Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review, 82 (09):905–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1994. The Supreme Court. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1995. “What Motivates Supreme Court Justices? Assessing the Evidence on Justices' Goals.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Boucher, Robert, and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 1995. “Supreme Court Justices as Strategic Decision Makers: Offensive Grants and Defensive Denials on the Vinson Court.” Journal of Politics 57 (08):824–37.Google Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1990. “Neo-institutionalism and Dissent in State Supreme Courts.” Journal of Politics 52 (02):54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1995. “Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 48 (03):5–29.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1979. “The New Certiorari Game.” Journal of Politics 41 (05):649–55.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory, and Wright, John. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (12):1109–28.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M. 1993. “New Avenues for Modeling Judicial Politics.” Paper presented at the 2d Annual Conference of the W. Allen Wallis Institute of Political Economy, University of Rochester, Rochester.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., Cover, Albert D., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 1990. “Supreme Court Nominations and the Rational Presidency.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Almanac. Various years. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly News Features.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law 6 (Fall):179–295.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M. 1981. “Saving Amendments, Killer Amendments, and an Expected Utility Theory of Sophisticated Voting.” Journal of Politics 43 (11):1062–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Hoekstra, Valerie, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1995. “Do Sincere Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1995. “Positive Approaches to Supreme Court Decision Making.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Mershon, Carol. 1996. “Measuring Political Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (02):261–94.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Walker, Thomas G.. 1995. “The Role of the Supreme Court in American Society: Playing the Reconstruction Game.” In Contemplating Courts, ed. Epstein, Lee. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Walker, Thomas G., and Dixon, William J.. 1989. “The Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Disputes: A Neoinstitutional Perspective.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (11):825–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. 1991a. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions.” Yale Law Journal 101 (11):331–455.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. 1991b. “Reneging on History? Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game.” California Law Review 79 (05):613–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ex Pane McCardle, 7 Wallace 506 (1869).Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Shipan, Charles. 1990. “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 6 (Special Issue): 1–20.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Weingast, Barry. 1992. “A Positive Theory of Statutory Interpretation.” International Review of Law and Economics 12 (06):263–79.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1975. “Formal Models in Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 19 (02): 133–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gely, Rafael, and Spiller, Pablo T.. 1990. “A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Decision Making with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 6 (Fall):263–300.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., and Epstein, Lee. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 86 (06):323–37.Google Scholar
Grove City College v. Bell 465 U.S. 555 (1984).Google Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M. 1992. “But Do They Have to See It to Know It: The Supreme Court's Obscenity and Pornography Decisions.” Western Political Quarterly 45 (12):1039–54.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 1992. “Electoral Politics and Strategic Voting in State Supreme Courts.” Journal of Politics 54 (05):427–46.Google Scholar
Herrera, Richard, Eperlein, Thomas, and Smith, Eric R. A. N.. 1995. “The Stability of Congressional Roll-Call Indexes.” Political Research Quarterly 48 (06):403–16.Google Scholar
Ignagni, Joseph. 1994. “Explaining and Predicting Supreme Court Decision Making: The Burger Court's Establishment Clause Decisions.” Journal of Church and State 36 (Spring):301–27.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Jack, and Epstein, Lee. 1996. “On the Struggle for Judicial Supremacy.” Law and Society Review 30 (1):87–120.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1986. “Unanimous Consent Agreements: Going Along in the Senate.” Journal of Politics 48 (08):541–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, and Rivers, Douglas. 1990. “Sophisticated Voting in Congress: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Politics 52 (08):548–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampf v. Gilbertson 501 U.S. 350 (1991).Google Scholar
Lemieux, Peter H, and Stewart, Charles H. III. 1988. “Advise? Yes. Consent? May be. Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominations.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Marks, Brian A. 1988. “A Model of Judicial Influence on Congressional Policymaking: Grove City College v. Bell.” Working papers in Political Science, P-88-7, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Marks, Brian A. 1989. “A Model of Judicial Influence on Congressional Policymaking: Grove City College v. Bell .” Ph.D. diss., Washington University.Google Scholar
Matthews, Donald R. 1960. U.S. Senators and Their World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin. 1990. “Obscenity, Libertarian Values, and Decision Making in the Supreme Court.” American Politics Quarteryly 18 (01):47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNollgast, [McCubbins, Matthew D., Noll, Roger G., Weingast, Barry R.]. 1990. “Positive and Normative Models of Procedural Rights: An Integrative Approach to Administrative Procedures.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 6 (Special Issue):307–32.Google Scholar
McNollgast, [McCubbins, Matthew D., Noll, Roger G., Weingast, Barry R.]. 1992. “Positive Canons: The Role of Legislative Bargains in Statutory Interpretation.” Georgetown Law Journal 80 (02):705–42.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1962. Congress and the Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Garrison. 1993. Committees in the U.S. Congress, 1947–92.. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen. 1983. “The Amicus Curiae Role of the U.S. Solicitor General in Supreme Court Litigation.” Judicature 66 (12–January):256–64.Google Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J. 1989. Congressional Procedures and Policy Process. 3d ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, 93–1121 (1995).Google Scholar
Puro, Steven. 1981. “The United States as Amicus Curiae.” In Courts, Law and Judicial Processes, ed. Ulmer, S. Sidney. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1984. “The Heresthetics of Constitution-Making: The Presidency in 1787, with Comments on Determinism and Rational Choice.” American Political Science Review 78 (03):1–16.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, Daniel B. 1994. “The Positive Political Dimensions of Regulatory Reform.” Washington University Law Quarterly 72 (1):1–150.Google Scholar
Rohde, David, and Spaeth, Harold. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald. 1994. “Symposium: The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.” Law and Courts 4 (Spring):6–8.Google Scholar
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia 94–329 (1995).Google Scholar
Rutten, Andrew. 1993. “Accountability, Separation of Powers and the Judiciary: Where Are We in the Positive Theory of Courts?” Paper presented at the 2d annual conference of the W. Allen Institute of Political Economy, University of Rochester, Rochester.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1959. Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1965. The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Edward P. 1992. “Policy, Precedent, and Power: A Positive Theory of Supreme Court Decision Making.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 8 (04):219–52.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Edward P., Spiller, Pablo T., and Urbiztondo, Santiago. 1994. “A Positive Theory of Legislative Intent.” Law and Contemporary Problems 57 (Winter):51–74.Google Scholar
Scigliano, Robert. 1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. “Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases 1962–1981.” American Political Science Review 78 (09):891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1988. “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General during the Warren and Burger Courts.” Western Political Quarterly 41 (03):135–44.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1995. “Marksist (and NeoMarksist) Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: Separation of Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Law and Courts.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Cameron, Charles M., and Cover, Albert D.. 1992. “A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (02):96–121.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D.. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (06):557–65.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Epstein, Lee, Cameron, Charles M., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1995. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited.” Journal of Politics 57 (08):812–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Reedy, Cheryl D.. 1988. “The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General.” Western Political Quarterly 41 (09):553–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1994. “Symposium: The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model.” Law and Courts 4 (Spring): 10–2.Google Scholar
Sharp, Michael J. 1988. The Directory of Congressional Voting Scores and Interest Group Ratings. New York: Facts on File Publications.Google Scholar
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers. 1988. “Political Jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law.” American Political Science Review 82 (03):89–108.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cameron, Charles M.. 1994. “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (08):673–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold. 1994. U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953–1992 Terms. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR Study #9422.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T., and Gely, Rafael. 1992. “Congressional Control or Judicial Independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor-Relations Decisions, 1949–1988.” RAND Journal of Economics 23 (Winter):463–92.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T., and Spitzer, Matthew L.. 1992. “Judicial Choice of Legal Doctrines.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 8 (03):8–46.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T., and Tiller, Emerson. 1993. “Invitations to Override: Congressional Reversals of Supreme Court Decisions.” University of California, Berkeley. Typescript.Google Scholar
United Air Lines v. McMann 434 U.S. 192 (1977).Google Scholar
United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979).Google Scholar
Wenzel, James P. 1995. “Stability and Change in the Ideological Values in Supreme Court Decisions.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Wolpert, Robin. 1991. “Explaining and Predicting Supreme Court Decision Making: The Gender Discrimination Cases, 1971–1987.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.