Title
I Respectfully Dissent: Consensus, Agendas, And Policymaking On The U.S. Supreme Court, 1888-1999
Abstract
Scholars have been intrigued by the abrupt change in the rate of nonconsensual opinions that the Supreme Court has published over time, which substantially increased beginning with the battles cancerning the court's New Deal transition in the 1930s. Notwithstanding, none of the prior studies on this topic has made any link, whether theoretical or empirical, between the Supreme Court's issuance of these special opinions and the justices' policy preferences. We utilize fractional cointegration to examine the relationship between consensus, agendas, and decisionmaking on the Supreme Court. We find that there is a systematic interrelation between the justices' policy preferences and their issuance of nonconsensual opinions that is dependent upon the policy agenda before the court. In turn, this connection influences the court's policy outcomes, demonstrating that the justices' behavior regarding nonconsensual opinion writing is a classic example of judicial policymaking. © 2004 by The Policy Studies Association. All rights reserved.
Publication Date
1-1-2004
Publication Title
Review of Policy Research
Volume
21
Issue
3
Number of Pages
429-445
Document Type
Article
Personal Identifier
scopus
DOI Link
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00085.x
Copyright Status
Unknown
Socpus ID
2542610724 (Scopus)
Source API URL
https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/2542610724
STARS Citation
Hurwitz, Mark S. and Lanier, Drew Noble, "I Respectfully Dissent: Consensus, Agendas, And Policymaking On The U.S. Supreme Court, 1888-1999" (2004). Scopus Export 2000s. 5587.
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/scopus2000/5587