Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

47 results

Page 1 of 3

  • On Estimating Personality Traits of US Supreme Court Justices

  • Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking, Patrick C. Wohlfarth
  • Journal:
    Journal of Law and Courts / Volume 9 / Issue 2 / Fall 2021
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    21 October 2022, pp. 371-396

  • Psychological scholarship on personality is uniting with political science to redefine existing theories. This is clearly the case with research on judicial behavior and the US Supreme Court. But if this new approach is to survive and thrive, it must employ measures equal to the task. We show that Supreme Court Individual Personality Estimates, which seek to estimate justices’ personalities by examining their concurring opinions, suffer from a number of important methodological deficits that critically limit their usefulness. We briefly discuss what kinds of improved personality measures scholars should use instead and offer an improved set of estimates for one trait with an application that demonstrates our cautionary tale.

  • How the Supreme Court Alters Opinion Language to Evade Congressional Review

  • Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking, Patrick C. Wohlfarth
  • Journal:
    Journal of Law and Courts / Volume 1 / Issue 1 / Spring 2013
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    21 October 2022, pp. 35-59

  • We argue that actors can attempt to shield their policy choices from unfavorable review by crafting them in a manner that will increase the costs necessary for supervisory institutions to review them. We apply this theory to the US Supreme Court and demonstrate how justices strategically obfuscate the language of majority opinions in the attempt to circumvent unfavorable review from a politically hostile Congress. The results suggest that Supreme Court justices can and do alter the language of their opinions to raise the costs of legislative review and thereby protect their decisions.

Page 1 of 3