Summary Of Strategic Auditing In A Political Hierarchy

Game theory tries to prove that the justices will act strategically when trying to grant writs according to their ideology. In “Strategic Auditing in a political Hierarchy”, Cameron, Segal, and Songer are specifically looking at search and seizure cases from 1972 to 1986, and the writs that were granted by Supreme Court.
The study could not account for the district court, but it could account for the circuit and supreme court. In the judicial common space, doctrinal compliance occurs when the lower court conforms to doctrine set by the higher court. In terms of doctrinal conformity, the supreme court decision can still conform to doctrine, but not conform to the decision they passed.
The problem with the hierarchy between the district, circuit,

They do not have any of the traditional tools for lower court judges; instead, they have sanctions. Informal sanctions supplement with formal rules, and avoiding reversals are one of the informal motivations for the lower courts. Lower courts desire to avoid reversal, and do not want to be overturned as there is prestige about having a decision made that is not being constantly reviewed and consequently reversed.
The Supreme Court only look at the role of certiorari, and do not look at the certiorari that were not granted, nor at factual decisions. They are not seeing if they are creating or upholding doctrine. They cannot see the many decisions that are coming out, nor whether the lower courts are following servient doctrinal documents versus

When it comes to searches and seizure cases, you can try to apply this theory and method to other cases. When they appeal, the overall probability of granting certiorari for search and seizure cases is 7%. Therefore outside of the equilibrium, if the lower court use a doctrinal that did not appeal to the preferences of the higher court, they would not be granted cert.
Figure 2 have predicted patterns in the data: the probability of certiorari being granted when the evidence is admitted into the lower court is 0% regardless of the intrusiveness and actuality. If the evidence is admitted, the chance of that conversative higher court taking the case up is 0%. The conservative court does not want to the evidence excluded, and want the evidence admitted. The evidence that is admitted makes the prosecution easier.
Whether the supreme court moderates its rulings when faced with ideologically hostile Congress, but fail to evidence that such moderation and constraint actually exist. Since the court’s docket is discretionary, there is a chance that the court refrains from hearing a case that it expects to garner hostile response in Congress. The estimation of probability with constitutionality of congressional statute will be reviewed by the court, its conditional expected utility gains from the median justice depends on the final rulings of the merits as far as they see the