IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v25y2017i01p114-121_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Common-Space Scaling of the American Judiciary and Legal Profession

Author

Listed:
  • Bonica, Adam
  • Sen, Maya

Abstract

We extend the scaling methodology previously used in Bonica (2014) to jointly scale the American federal judiciary and legal profession in a common space with other political actors. The end result is the first dataset of consistently measured ideological scores across all tiers of the federal judiciary and the legal profession, including 840 federal judges and 380,307 attorneys. To illustrate these measures, we present two examples involving the U.S. Supreme Court. These data open up significant areas of scholarly inquiry.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonica, Adam & Sen, Maya, 2017. "A Common-Space Scaling of the American Judiciary and Legal Profession," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 114-121, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:25:y:2017:i:01:p:114-121_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198716000103/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abhinav Gupta & Adam J. Wowak & Warren Boeker, 2022. "Corporate directors as heterogeneous network pipes: How director political ideology affects the interorganizational diffusion of governance practices," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 1469-1498, August.
    2. Robert S. Erikson, 2022. "Appellate court assignments as a natural experiment: Gender panel effects in sex discrimination cases," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 423-446, June.
    3. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. Adam Bonica & Adam Chilton & Jacob Goldin & Kyle Rozema & Maya Sen, 2019. "Legal Rasputins? Law Clerk Influence on Voting at the US Supreme Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 1-36.
    5. Bonica, Adam & Chilton, Adam & Rozema, Kyle & Sen, Maya, 2017. "The Legal Academy's Ideological Uniformity," Working Paper Series rwp17-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Wessel Wijtvliet & Arthur Dyevre, 2021. "Judicial ideology in economic cases: Evidence from the General Court of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 25-45, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:25:y:2017:i:01:p:114-121_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.