合作与分裂:稳定的伦奎斯特法院时代投票的异同实证分析(1994 - 2005)

Q2 Social Sciences Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Pub Date : 2012-01-16 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1986402
Mark S. Klock
{"title":"合作与分裂:稳定的伦奎斯特法院时代投票的异同实证分析(1994 - 2005)","authors":"Mark S. Klock","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1986402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Stable Rehnquist Court Era (SRCE) covers the period from the appointment of Justice Breyer to the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist. There has been only one longer period of stability in the Court’s history, and that was in the early nineteenth century when far fewer cases were decided. Because the composition of the Court held constant for so long, the SRCE presents a unique opportunity to conduct a statistical analysis of the Justices’ votes. I present a statistical empirical analysis of voting for this period, both for the potentially interesting results and as an example of how to conduct and present an empirical study which is objective and replicable. Some of the findings include the following: only a few pairs of Justices have statistically significant differences in voting records; the magnitude of the departure from independent voting is enormous in statistical terms; Justice Thomas is the most predictable Justice; and Justice Scalia is the least-changed Justice. Of particular interest is a finding that is contrary to conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom suggests that the median Justice closest to the center, presumably Justice Kennedy, is the most influential Justice. However, I have developed a measure of influence which employs the statistically significant effects the Justices have on each other, and this suggests that the most influential Justices on the Court during the SRCE were Rehnquist, Souter, and Breyer.","PeriodicalId":39833,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"537-588"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.1986402","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cooperation and Division: An Empirical Analysis of Voting Similarities and Differences During the Stable Rehnquist Court Era — 1994 to 2005\",\"authors\":\"Mark S. Klock\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1986402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Stable Rehnquist Court Era (SRCE) covers the period from the appointment of Justice Breyer to the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist. There has been only one longer period of stability in the Court’s history, and that was in the early nineteenth century when far fewer cases were decided. Because the composition of the Court held constant for so long, the SRCE presents a unique opportunity to conduct a statistical analysis of the Justices’ votes. I present a statistical empirical analysis of voting for this period, both for the potentially interesting results and as an example of how to conduct and present an empirical study which is objective and replicable. Some of the findings include the following: only a few pairs of Justices have statistically significant differences in voting records; the magnitude of the departure from independent voting is enormous in statistical terms; Justice Thomas is the most predictable Justice; and Justice Scalia is the least-changed Justice. Of particular interest is a finding that is contrary to conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom suggests that the median Justice closest to the center, presumably Justice Kennedy, is the most influential Justice. However, I have developed a measure of influence which employs the statistically significant effects the Justices have on each other, and this suggests that the most influential Justices on the Court during the SRCE were Rehnquist, Souter, and Breyer.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"537-588\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.1986402\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1986402\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1986402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

稳定的伦奎斯特法院时代(SRCE)涵盖了从任命布雷耶大法官到伦奎斯特首席大法官去世的这段时期。在最高法院的历史上,只有一个较长的稳定时期,那就是在19世纪初,当时判决的案件要少得多。由于最高法院的组成长期保持不变,因此SRCE为对大法官的投票进行统计分析提供了一个独特的机会。我对这一时期的投票进行了统计实证分析,既是为了潜在的有趣结果,也是为了作为如何进行和提出客观和可复制的实证研究的一个例子。其中一些发现包括:只有几对大法官在投票记录上有统计上的显著差异;从统计角度来看,脱离独立投票的程度是巨大的;托马斯法官是最可预测的法官;而斯卡利亚大法官是变化最小的大法官。特别令人感兴趣的是一项与传统观点相反的发现。传统观点认为,最接近中间的大法官,大概是肯尼迪大法官,是最有影响力的大法官。然而,我开发了一种衡量影响力的方法,该方法利用了大法官之间在统计上的显著影响,这表明在SRCE期间最有影响力的大法官是伦奎斯特、苏特和布雷耶。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cooperation and Division: An Empirical Analysis of Voting Similarities and Differences During the Stable Rehnquist Court Era — 1994 to 2005
The Stable Rehnquist Court Era (SRCE) covers the period from the appointment of Justice Breyer to the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist. There has been only one longer period of stability in the Court’s history, and that was in the early nineteenth century when far fewer cases were decided. Because the composition of the Court held constant for so long, the SRCE presents a unique opportunity to conduct a statistical analysis of the Justices’ votes. I present a statistical empirical analysis of voting for this period, both for the potentially interesting results and as an example of how to conduct and present an empirical study which is objective and replicable. Some of the findings include the following: only a few pairs of Justices have statistically significant differences in voting records; the magnitude of the departure from independent voting is enormous in statistical terms; Justice Thomas is the most predictable Justice; and Justice Scalia is the least-changed Justice. Of particular interest is a finding that is contrary to conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom suggests that the median Justice closest to the center, presumably Justice Kennedy, is the most influential Justice. However, I have developed a measure of influence which employs the statistically significant effects the Justices have on each other, and this suggests that the most influential Justices on the Court during the SRCE were Rehnquist, Souter, and Breyer.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1991, the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy (JLPP) has quickly risen to become one of the leading public policy journals in the nation. A fixture among the top 10 policy journals, JLPP has consistently been among the top 100 student-edited law journals. JLPP publishes articles, student notes, essays, book reviews, and other scholarly works that examine the intersections of compelling public or social policy issues and the law. As a journal of law and policy, we are a publication that not only analyzes the law but also seeks to impact its development.
期刊最新文献
Environmental Law and Policy Civil Rights Law and Policy A Historic Introduction to Law and Public Policy Security Law and Policy Institutions and Power—Congress, the Courts, and the President
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1