ipl-logo

Comparison Of Supreme Court Justices And The Attitudinal Theory

1413 Words6 Pages

Decision making in the Supreme Court is a complex and multifaceted process, one that has been both analyzed and scrutinized by various scholars who sought to understand what actually fueled and motivated the choices made by Supreme Court justices. While decision making in the Supreme Court may seem like a basic aspect of Supreme Court processes, understanding why justices make the decisions they do is critical as their interpretation and enforcement of the law affects the hundreds of millions of citizens living in the United States. Among many, two theories are prominent for their evaluations on this process: the strategic theory as described by Lee Epstein and Jack Knight in "The Choices Justices Make," and the attitudinal theory by Jeffrey …show more content…

However, it is clear that the strategic theory prevails as a more convincing analysis of the behavior of Supreme Court justices, as it offers a more comprehensive understanding of decision-making by accounting for negotiation processes, institutional constraints, and strategic interactions than the attitudinal model. To understand why the strategic model is superior, it is essential to fully understand both theories and what they posit. Through the strategic theory, Epstein and Knight primarily argue that justices take into account not only their policy preferences but also interactions with other Justices and their own personal motivations. Epstein and Knight establish a deeper argument for their case by analyzing other potential motivations …show more content…

They state, “Justices, we argue, do not make their choices in isolation; they must and do pay some heed to the preferences of others and the actions they expect others to take” (Epstein & Knight 1998, p. 79). They make this case using four distinct elements: bargaining over policy, forward thinking, manipulating the agenda, and strategic opinion writing. Each of these aspects in the strategic theory is essential to how it is perceived: bargaining happens when judges are deciding whether or not to grant certiorari; forward thinking by expecting what decisions will be made by other judges; manipulating agenda occurs when the Chief Justice attempts to change the direction of the vote in their first speech (based on what they predict the vote to be); and finally that judges are sometimes swayed by the ideas presented by opinion writing of cases (Epstein & Knight 1998, pp. 65-99). A key strength in using these four building blocks for their theory is the acknowledgment that judges work in a complex system outside of their own thinking. They are not perfect entities who are free from influence, and will almost certainly act strategically. Epstein and Knight also highlight the importance of negotiations and compromises which occur in

Show More
Related
1023 Words | 5 Pages

When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.

Read More
1528 Words | 7 Pages

Tulsa L. Rev., 38, 609. Devins, N., & Fisher, L. (1998). Judicial exclusivity and political instability. Virginia Law Review, 83–106.

Read More
1314 Words | 6 Pages

In regards to the detailed studies of both Segal and Spaeth, and Brenan and Stier, valid points had been made for both sides of the argument. The question posed is rather or not stare decisis still exist in the courts rulings today. Segal and Spaeth analyze the rulings of dissenting judges of landmark cases since the start of the Warren Court while excluding cases with unanimous decisions and cases without progeny within the legal period. The areas of which they dissected and constructed the particular datasets for analyzing is superb as it specifically narrows down the specific information there looking for within their results. The findings from there assessments concluded that precedent did not play a overwhelming role in the sub sequential

Read More
812 Words | 4 Pages

The most contentious debate, however, concerns the legal principle of stare decisis. A Latin phrase, stare decisis means that judges should respect legal precedents by letting them stand instead of overturning them. It is important to note, however, that stare decisis is not found in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights; it is not the law of the land, but a “rule of thumb.” As Constitutional lawyer Robert McFarland points out, a number of Democratic congressmen have taken a sudden interest in this legal principle.

Read More
710 Words | 3 Pages

Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.

Read More
587 Words | 3 Pages

Oliphant analyzes the delicate balance of choosing political sides as compared to strictly upholding the law. Moreover, intertwined throughout the article, Oliphant records predications for the future of the court. For example, he outlines the potential implications if Romney were to have been elected in the 2012 November presidential race. Oliphant appeals to the reputation of Chief Justice Roberts ' historical appointment, voting history, forecasted impact on the bench, and implied influences by political parties and media, in order to establish Roberts ' credibility, despite a reputation inconsistent with his judiciary colleagues. Oliphants sinuous article, "Tipping the Scales" institutes that readers will arrive at one of two conclusions: Chief Justice Roberts 's decisions are unreliable or his actions are justified based on his

Read More
637 Words | 3 Pages

Kastellec mainly focuses on three elements that are necessary in order to create this connection between the American public and The Supreme Court. The elements are listed as : knowledge, salience and attention. According to his finding, (1) citizens tend to know about court decisions that affect them or the issues they care about, (2) Americans know more about the court and pay ore attention to senators and how they vote according to their views, and (3) the senators do monitor and care about what public think because of their desire for reelection. Therefore, history proves that in order for senators to establish credibility in the

Read More
462 Words | 2 Pages

When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.

Read More
738 Words | 3 Pages

The United States Supreme Court is not transparent to the citizens in this country and they fail to publicly reveal reasoning’s to their decisions that they have made. The courts non-transparency make people wonder and uncomfortable for congress has to openly show how they voted one bills Jeffrey L. Fisher razes this type of questions in his article “The Supreme Court’s Secret Power” in The New York Times he raises concern for the Supreme Court and the justice; claiming that they have become too powerful and the people of this country deserve to see how each justice vote due we entrusted them I the position and we deserve to know if they are in good favor.

Read More
529 Words | 3 Pages

constitution. During his time on the Supreme Court bench he has rejected the moves towards build-up, he believes that focus should be on the actual meaning of the Constitution and not just want the court says it means due to past cases. Most if not all of the Justices opinions are based off originality, and public meaning this approach seeking to explain the original constitutional text. (Conwell Law). “I have said in my opinions that when interpreting the Constitution, judges should seek the original understanding of the provision’s text, if that text’s meaning is not readily apparent”.

Read More
1618 Words | 7 Pages

As time has progressed, the United States has continuously changed to meet the needs of its people. With each passing day, the country has slowly shifted away from what it had been initially as created by our forefathers. One reason for this transformation has been the nation’s judicial branch which has influenced the course of social and reform movements, as well as our ideologies and beliefs. The court rulings under Earl Warren are evidence that the judicial branch is a powerful force that can be a catalyst for change.

Read More
247 Words | 1 Pages

The article Broken Bench explains the controversy over having “tiny courts” in New York State. The author, William Glaberson argues that the idea of justice within the jurisdiction of these tiny courts is unfairly decided among the justices in charge. Due to the lack of experience of these justices, it is difficult for fair justice to be dealt out. One of the major causes explained by the author for unfair justice is that the justices of the court are very inexperienced. For example, William Glaberson states, “Nearly three-quarters of the judges are not lawyers, and many — truck drivers, sewer workers or laborers — have scant grasp of the most basic legal principles.

Read More
327 Words | 2 Pages

The complicated process of judicial decision making is made either more complicatedly ambiguous or more easily justifiable, due in large part to the vagueness of the Constitution. However, the vague language of the Constitution was a conscious decision by the Framers; it allows for an ever-changing document that we may interpret differently as the world changes around us. There are three methods of interpretation by the Supreme Court justices: legal, attitudinal, and strategic. The legal model of interpretation says that rulings are based strictly on factual evidence, current law, and precedent. Moreover, this model asserts that a justice will set aside his personal beliefs and rule objectively.

Read More
429 Words | 2 Pages

Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.

Read More
801 Words | 4 Pages

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

Read More

More about Comparison Of Supreme Court Justices And The Attitudinal Theory

Related Topics

Open Document