IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v6y2009i3p485-511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Will They Vote? Predicting the Future Behavior of Supreme Court Nominees, 1937–2006

Author

Listed:
  • Charles M. Cameron
  • Jee‐Kwang Park

Abstract

Previous research suggests that the future behavior of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court is relatively unpredictable, except for civil liberties cases. We devise a new measure of nominees' political ideology that more efficiently uses preconfirmation information about the nominees. The measure employs Segal‐Cover scores (based on content analysis of contemporary newspaper editorials) as well as DW‐NOMINATE indicators, and is scaled into the DW‐NOMINATE space. The measure predicts confirmed nominees' overall immediate, short‐term, and longer‐term voting behavior, as well as voting in issue‐specific domains, much better than do previous measures. It is particularly successful for nominees confirmed after 1957.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles M. Cameron & Jee‐Kwang Park, 2009. "How Will They Vote? Predicting the Future Behavior of Supreme Court Nominees, 1937–2006," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 485-511, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:6:y:2009:i:3:p:485-511
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01151.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01151.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01151.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCarty, Nolan M & Poole, Keith T, 1995. "Veto Power and Legislation: An Empirical Analysis of Executive and Legislative Bargaining from 1961 to 1986," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 282-312, October.
    2. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 2002. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 25-44, January.
    3. Jackman, Simon, 2001. "Multidimensional Analysis of Roll Call Data via Bayesian Simulation: Identification, Estimation, Inference, and Model Checking," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 227-241, January.
    4. Cameron, Charles M. & Cover, Albert D. & Segal, Jeffrey A., 1990. "Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 525-534, June.
    5. Segal, Jeffrey A. & Cover, Albert D., 1989. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 557-565, June.
    6. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher Hare & Keith T. Poole, 2015. "Measuring ideology in Congress," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 18, pages 327-346, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    4. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    5. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "Strategic Judicial Preference Revelation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 113-137.
    6. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2021. "Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 981-1019, July.
    7. Bertomeu Juan González & Pellegrina Lucia Dalla & Garoupa Nuno, 2017. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Latin America: The Case of Argentina," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-35, March.
    8. Daniel W. Hill Jr., 2016. "Avoiding Obligation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(6), pages 1129-1158, September.
    9. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    10. Jivas Chakravarthy, 2019. "Ideological diversity in standard setting," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 113-155, March.
    11. F. Swen Kuh & Grace S. Chiu & Anton H. Westveld, 2019. "Modeling National Latent Socioeconomic Health and Examination of Policy Effects via Causal Inference," Papers 1911.00512, arXiv.org.
    12. Guimaraesy, Bernardo & Meyerhof Salama, Bruno, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86146, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Noah Giansiracusa, 2023. "Branching on the bench: quantifying division in the supreme court with trees," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 36-58, March.
    14. Lerner, Joshua Y. & McCubbins, Mathew D. & Renberg, Kristen M., 2021. "The efficacy of measuring judicial ideal points: The mis-analogy of IRTs," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    15. Brandon Marshall & Michael Peress, 2018. "Dynamic estimation of ideal points for the US Congress," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 153-174, July.
    16. Guimarães, Bernardo de Vasconcellos & Salama, Bruno Meyerhof, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," Textos para discussão 440, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    17. Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, 2013. "Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 151-186.
    18. James D. Morrow & Kevin L. Cope, 2021. "The limits of information revelation in multilateral negotiations: A theory of treatymaking," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 399-429, October.
    19. Swen Kuh & Grace S. Chiu & Anton H. Westveld, 2020. "Latent Causal Socioeconomic Health Index," Papers 2009.12217, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    20. Giansiracusa, Noah & Ricciardi, Cameron, 2019. "Computational geometry and the U.S. Supreme Court," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-9.

    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:wly:empleg:v:6:y:2009:i:3:p:485-511. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.