Dioso-Villa, Rachel 2017. Is the Expert Admissibility Game Fixed?: Judicial Gatekeeping of Fire and Arson Evidence. Law & Policy, Vol. 38, Issue. 1, p. 54.
Hazelton, Morgan L. W. Montgomery, Jacob M. and Nyhan, Brendan 2017. Does Public Financing Affect Judicial Behavior? Evidence From the North Carolina Supreme Court. American Politics Research, Vol. 44, Issue. 4, p. 587.
Hefeker, Carsten and Neugart, Michael 2017. Policy deviations, uncertainty, and the European Court of Justice. European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 42, Issue. 3, p. 547.
Skiple, Jon Kåre Grendstad, Gunnar Shaffer, William R. and Waltenburg, Eric N. 2017. Supreme Court Justices’ Economic Behaviour: A Multilevel Model Analysis. Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 39, Issue. 1, p. 73.
Thrower, Sharece 2017. The President, the Court, and Policy Implementation. Presidential Studies Quarterly,
Bradbury, Michael E. and Harrison, Julie A. 2017. The FASB's Dissenting Opinions. Accounting Horizons, Vol. 29, Issue. 2, p. 363.
Budziak, Jeffrey and Lempert, Daniel 2017. Assessing Threats to Inference with Simultaneous Sensitivity Analysis: The Case of US Supreme Court Oral Arguments. Political Science Research and Methods, p. 1.
Ceron, Andrea and Mainenti, Marco 2017. Toga Party: The Political Basis of Judicial Investigations against MPs in Italy (1983–2013). South European Society and Politics, Vol. 20, Issue. 2, p. 223.
Garoupa, Nuno and Grembi, Veronica 2017. Judicial review and political partisanship: Moving from consensual to majoritarian democracy. International Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 43, p. 32.
Goerke, Laszlo and Neugart, Michael 2017. Lobbying and dismissal dispute resolution systems. International Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 41, p. 50.
Nelson, Michael J. 2017. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.
Banks, Christopher P. and Tauber, Steven 2017. U.S. District Court Decision-Making in USA PATRIOT Act Cases after September 11. Justice System Journal, Vol. 35, Issue. 2, p. 139.
Cowart, Tammy W. Lirely, Roger and Avery, Sherry 2017. Two Methodologies for Predicting Patent Litigation Outcomes: Logistic Regression Versus Classification Trees. American Business Law Journal, Vol. 51, Issue. 4, p. 843.
Lee, Jongkon 2017. Public Meetings for Efficient Administrative Performance in the United States. Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 37, Issue. 3, p. 388.
Nery Ferreira, Pedro Fernando Almeida and Mueller, Bernardo 2017. How judges think in the Brazilian Supreme Court: Estimating ideal points and identifying dimensions. EconomiA, Vol. 15, Issue. 3, p. 275.
Donner, Christopher M. 2017. Presidential Influence on Police Practices: The U.S. President’s Indirect Impact on Fourth Amendment Case Outcome Through Supreme Court Appointments. American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 38, Issue. 3, p. 422.
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack 2017. Reconsidering Judicial Preferences. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 11.
Garoupa, N. Gomez-Pomar, F. and Grembi, V. 2017. Judging under Political Pressure: An Empirical Analysis of Constitutional Review Voting in the Spanish Constitutional Court. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Vol. 29, Issue. 3, p. 513.
Keith, Linda Camp Holmes, Jennifer S. and Miller, Banks P. 2017. Explaining the Divergence in Asylum Grant Rates among Immigration Judges: An Attitudinal and Cognitive Approach. Law & Policy, Vol. 35, Issue. 4, p. 261.
Masood, Ali S. and Songer, Donald R. 2017. Reevaluating the Implications of Decision-Making Models. Journal of Law and Courts, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, p. 363.
How does the U.S. Supreme Court reach decisions? Since the 1940s, scholars have focused on two distinct explanations. The legal model suggests that the rule of law (stare decisis) is the key determinant. The extralegal model posits that an array of sociological, psychological, and political factors produce judicial outcomes. To determine which model better accounted for judicial decisions, we used Supreme Court cases involving the imposition of the death penalty since 1972 and estimated and evaluated the models' success in accounting for decisional outcomes. Although both models performed quite satisfactorily, they possessed disturbing weaknesses. The legal perspective overpredicted liberal outcomes, the extralegal model conservative ones. Given these results, we tested another proposition, namely that extralegal and legal frameworks present codependent, not mutually exclusive, explanations of decision making. Based on these results, we offer an integrated model of Supreme Court decision making that contemplates a range of political and environmental forces and doctrinal constraints.
This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.