Objective. We seek to explore the opinion assignments of Chief Justices from 1888 to 1940 using three models: the organizational, institutional, and attitudinal models. Methods. We empirically examine opinion assignments from 1888 to 1940 through a data set that the authors have collected. Results. We find that earlier Chief Justices made assignments based on institutional and organizational criteria rather than for ideological reasons. Conclusions. We believe this difference is most likely related to contextual factors that have changed for the modern Court
How can we assess bargaining power within the Supreme Court? Do authorship and opin-ion assignment a...
There are three general models of Supreme Court decision making: the legal model, the attitudinal mo...
We introduce a new data set recording the vote of every Justice in 18,812 Supreme Court cases decide...
We present the first formal model of opinion assignment on the Supreme Court. The model simultaneous...
Previous research indicates that U.S. Supreme Court justices who are likely to control opinion assig...
Under the acclimation effect view, recent appointees to the Court modify their behavior in systemati...
Under the acclimation effect view, recent appointees to the Court modify their behavior in systemati...
The foundation upon which accounts of policy-motivated behavior of Supreme Court justices are built ...
ABSTRACT Recent research has demonstrated that the preferences of US Supreme Court justices are not ...
This paper addresses the two main criticisms made by Cass Sunstein of the ideological rankings of ju...
To understand policy-motivated behavior of Supreme Court justices it is necessary to measure their p...
This study expands Segal and Spaeth\u27s (2002) attitudinal model. This model is used to predict Su...
The Supreme Court Opinion as Institutional Practice explores historical transformations in practices...
Most scholarship on Supreme Court decision making assumes that justices’ ideological preferences exh...
Using the Martin-Quinn ideology scores, we show that U.S. Supreme Court justices strategically respo...
How can we assess bargaining power within the Supreme Court? Do authorship and opin-ion assignment a...
There are three general models of Supreme Court decision making: the legal model, the attitudinal mo...
We introduce a new data set recording the vote of every Justice in 18,812 Supreme Court cases decide...
We present the first formal model of opinion assignment on the Supreme Court. The model simultaneous...
Previous research indicates that U.S. Supreme Court justices who are likely to control opinion assig...
Under the acclimation effect view, recent appointees to the Court modify their behavior in systemati...
Under the acclimation effect view, recent appointees to the Court modify their behavior in systemati...
The foundation upon which accounts of policy-motivated behavior of Supreme Court justices are built ...
ABSTRACT Recent research has demonstrated that the preferences of US Supreme Court justices are not ...
This paper addresses the two main criticisms made by Cass Sunstein of the ideological rankings of ju...
To understand policy-motivated behavior of Supreme Court justices it is necessary to measure their p...
This study expands Segal and Spaeth\u27s (2002) attitudinal model. This model is used to predict Su...
The Supreme Court Opinion as Institutional Practice explores historical transformations in practices...
Most scholarship on Supreme Court decision making assumes that justices’ ideological preferences exh...
Using the Martin-Quinn ideology scores, we show that U.S. Supreme Court justices strategically respo...
How can we assess bargaining power within the Supreme Court? Do authorship and opin-ion assignment a...
There are three general models of Supreme Court decision making: the legal model, the attitudinal mo...
We introduce a new data set recording the vote of every Justice in 18,812 Supreme Court cases decide...