Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

For more information, click here

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

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 Sala, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Spriggs, J. F.
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?

Designing Tests of the Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers

Brian R. Sala

University of California, Davis

James F. Spriggs, II

University of California, Davis

While rational choice models of Supreme Court decisionmaking have enhanced our appreciation for the separation of powers built into the Madisonian Constitutional design, convincing empirical support for a Separation-of-Powers (SOP) constraint on justices’ behavior has been elusive. We apply a standard spatial voting model to identify circumstances in which Attitudinalist and SOP predictions about justices’ behavior diverge. Our reconsideration of the theory indicates that prior efforts to test quantitatively the two models have failed to select out cases for which the two models’ predictions do not differ. While our more focused test offers a fairer test of the SOP constraint, the results strongly reject the SOP model. Nonetheless, our analysis provides leverage on this issue by: (1) delineating and executing necessary research design protocols for crafting a critical test of the SOP model; and (2) rejecting the two exogenously fixed alternative SOP models and suggesting avenues for future research.

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 2, 197-208 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/106591290405700202
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
N. Scherer and B. Miller
The Federalist Society's Influence on the Federal Judiciary
Political Research Quarterly, June 1, 2009; 62(2): 366 - 378.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
M. E. Wetstein, C.L. Ostberg, D. R. Songer, and S. W. Johnson
Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conf lict: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts
Comparative Political Studies, June 1, 2009; 42(6): 763 - 792.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Politics ResearchHome page
K. R. Nelson and E. M. Ringsmuth
Departures From the Court: The Political Landscape and Institutional Constraints
American Politics Research, May 1, 2009; 37(3): 486 - 507.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Law Econ OrganHome page
L. Epstein, A. D. Martin, J. A. Segal, and C. Westerland
The Judicial Common Space
J. Law Econ. Organ., June 1, 2007; 23(2): 303 - 325.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [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]