The United States’ Supreme Court is responsible for making some of the toughest and most influential decisions in the country each and every day. Very often, their decisions affect the many citizens of the nation, whether they are minor, or major. The Supreme Court makes many rulings each year, and many people do not even pay attention to the Court’s decisions. The majority of the population does not even think to question why the Justices vote the way they do, or how they arrive at the decisions they make. Many political scientists have tried to explain the voting behavior of the Justices in order to determine how they will vote. In my paper, I will take a look into theories behind why the Supreme Court Justices vote the way they do, and the many variables that factor into their decisions. My research question that I will investigate throughout this paper is: What factors play a role in how Supreme Court Justices vote, and does the political party that the Justice affiliates with alter their vote? This research is important because it can help the everyday citizen begin to understand how the highest court in their country votes, ultimately dictating their lives. Understanding the background and voting behaviors of the Justices will also help political scientists be able to make predictions on how certain decisions will come out. Researchers before me have posed questions regarding the factors that play a part in the decision making of the United States’ Supreme Court Justices. One of the first factors that prior researchers looked at was the background, or upbringing of the Justices. Researcher C. Neal Tate from North Texas State University acknowledged that, “Goldman and Sarat state that this consensus well (1978, p... ... middle of paper ... ...l Science Review, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Jun., 1989), pp. 557-565 Published by: American Political Science Association Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1962405 Tate, C. Neal. "Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946-1978." The American Political Science Review 75.2 (1981): 355-67. JSTOR. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. . Tate, C. Neal and Roger Handberg “Time Binding and Theory Building in Personal Attribute Models of Supreme Court Voting Behavior, 1916-88” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 460-480 Published by: Midwest Political Science Association Article DOI: 10.2307/2111371 Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111371
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
From 1992 to 2005, the Supreme Court’s decisions mostly mirrored public opinion. After Rehnquist’s passing in 2005, the Supreme Court has swung more in the direction of the conservative party than in pervious years. The conservative agenda is becoming more prominent than it was under Rehnquist and before O’Connor retired. Besides swing the court to the consertive side, Rehnquist’s passing also ended the longest running group of Justices to serve together. They had...
Segall, Eric J. "Supreme Court Justices: The Case for Hanging It Up." Los Angeles Times.
TerBeek, Calvin. “’Swing’ voters are still partisan.” Chicago Turbine. N.p., 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. .
Voters in many areas of the U.S. are apt to vote differently as a whole from election to election. The nation has also had a decreased turnout rate for the presidential and local elections. The South has typically not followed these patterns that the rest of has seemed to be following. The Southern whites of the U.S. have typically followed and voted for the more conservative candidate and party.
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Schmidt, Shelley, and Bardes. American Politics and Government Today. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999, pgs. 325-327.
Mr Justice Wilson, ‘Lectures on Advocacy and Ethics in the Supreme Court’ (1979) 15 Legal Research Foundation Inc.
When examining voting behavior over time, there are two areas one must look at to gain a better understanding of the process. The first, is why people vote the way they do, and the second looks at the individuals voting pattern over time. Since 1960, The American Voter, written by Campbell, Converse, Miller & Stokes, is still considered one of the most controversial pieces in the field of public opinion and election studies. Although there are numerous areas of exploration, the main purpose of this book was to further examine the psychological relationship of the voter from pre-adolescence to casting the tangible vote and the effects of parent-child socialization. A crucial argument presented states that party identification is the most important
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012
The debate over the legitimacy of the role of judicial review in the United States constitutional democracy has been around since the creation of the Constitution. The power of judicial review can be considered antidemocratic because it isn’t directly stated in the Constitution, of the authority of unelected judges and the fact that it sometimes resists the majority. Despite these claims, I believe judicial review is a constitutional doctrine, which arose from the historical process of persuasive reasoning in rulings, institutional prestige, the cooperation of political branches, and general public opinion.
Kate Malleson remarks that even the current recruitment pool which is dominated by middle aged successful barristers does seem to evoke John Griffith's theory of judicial conservatism. However, the apparently conservative composition of the judiciary does not necessarily mean that it gives preference to traditional views. In contrast to the US Supreme Court, there is little concern whether a UK judge’s social and political views a...
The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.