User:Marincyclist/sandbox

Models of Judicial decision making

Models of Judicial decision making are an attempt by researchers and scholars to provide an explanation for the votes of United States Supreme Court Justices.

With the Supreme Court holding such importance in the American legal and political system, researchers, scholars, and court-watchers have long tried to understand the motivations of its justices.

There are three main models of Judicial decision making: the legal model, the attitudinal model, and the strategic model.

The Legal model

By definition, The Legal model is the most traditional way of understanding the actions taken by a justice. The legal model posits that Justices decide cases based solely on the facts of the case, the Constitution, and past precedent. The legal model has its roots in static law theory.

Criticism of the Legal model

Criticism of the Legal Model comes from a variety of observations. Charles Herman Pritchett, writing in 1941, made some early observations that seemed to indicate that the Legal Model was not the sole influence on the votes of Supreme Court justices. He wrote: Working with an identical set of facts, and with roughly comparable training in the law, they come to different conclusions.

Pritchett conducted a rudimentary analysis (though complex at the time) of the dissents rendered by the Court from 1939-1941. He looked closely at which justices tended to join each other in dissent. He found that the justices who joined together tended to fall into two distinct groups, and except for two of the justices, none of the justices would join with a justice from the other side in dissent. These two distinct groups align with the perceived ideology of the justices at the time. Pritchett took his analysis further and found that for every case in which a dissent was rendered, there was at least one issue of public policy where conservatives and liberals would be expected to differ. There were no dissents rendered in cases involving purely a legal question.

The Attitudinal model

The Attitudinal model posits that the justices vote based solely on their personal policy preferences, attitudes, and values. The attitudinal model has its roots in the legal realist movement.

The Strategic model

The Strategic model posits that justices are strategic actors who understand that their ability to achieve their policy goal depends on consideration of the preferences of other actors and the institutional context and climate in which they act.

See also

Segal–Cover score Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices Judicial Common Space