Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Become a Reviewer!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Political Research Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McGuire, K. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court

Kevin T. McGuire

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

The solicitor general is widely believed to occupy a special status among the parties appearing in the U.S. Supreme Court. A broad array of theo retical advantages are thought to contribute to the federal government's influence, but scholars have no direct evidence of their impact. More importantly, virtually all existing research has failed to measure directly the influence of those advantages across other parties, as well. Estimating a series of probit models of executive success in the Court under both Democratic and Republican administrations, I test the impact of one such advantage, litigation experience, measured for all parties across all cases. The results suggest that, notwithstanding the conventional wisdom, there is nothing distinctive about the solicitor general's influence. Thus, exist ing explanations regarding the solicitor general's institutional prestige appear to overstate the importance of the executive's role in the Court.

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 2, 505-526 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/106591299805100210
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Political Research QuarterlyHome page
P. C. Corley
The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties' Briefs
Political Research Quarterly, September 1, 2008; 61(3): 468 - 478.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Politics ResearchHome page
C. Nicholson and P. M. Collins Jr.
The Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Strategies in the Supreme Court
American Politics Research, May 1, 2008; 36(3): 382 - 415.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Politics ResearchHome page
R. L. Pacelle Jr, B. W. Marshall, and B. W. Curry
Keepers of the Covenant or Platonic Guardians? Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court
American Politics Research, September 1, 2007; 35(5): 694 - 725.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Political Research QuarterlyHome page
S. L. Haynie and K. L. Sill
Experienced Advocates and Litigation Outcomes: Repeat Players in the South African Supreme Court of Appeal
Political Research Quarterly, September 1, 2007; 60(3): 443 - 453.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Political Research QuarterlyHome page
S. A. Lindquist and R. S. Solberg
Judicial Review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts: Explaining Justices' Responses to Constitutional Challenges
Political Research Quarterly, March 1, 2007; 60(1): 71 - 90.
[Abstract] [PDF]