Originalism , Pragmatic Conservatism, and Living Document Judicial Philosophies: Explaining Variation in U.S. Supreme Court Votes in Criminal Procedure Cases for the 1994–2014 Terms of Court

Buckler, Kevin; Gilmore, Elizabeth L.

doi:10.1007/s12103-016-9354-6

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This period of time facilitates an in-depth study of ideological divisiveness on the Court because it is a period of relative stability in terms of its composite members. During this period of time, the commonly considered conservativeliberal divide was 5-4 (for a more in-depth analysis of this period of stability and for additional research utilizing data for the Court for this period, see Buckler, 2014;Buckler et al, 2011;Buckler & Gilmore, 2016).…”

Section: Data Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that the politics of the executive and legislative branches are becoming much more intertwined with the composition of the Court in recent decades (see Buckler & Gilmore, 2016, for a discussion of this), attention to the ideological divisiveness across cases and not just between the justices should become an emergent area of scholarly attention. That is the focus of this study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ideological Divisiveness in Criminal Procedure Cases

Buckler

Gilmore

Cavanaugh

et al. 2016

Criminal Justice Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited scholarly attention has been devoted to an understanding of ideology in criminal procedure cases decided by appellate courts. This study focuses on U.S. Supreme Court outcomes and develops a measurement of ideological divisiveness in the voting patterns of the justices for the decisions announced for the 1994–2014 terms of the Court. The analysis approaches the issue of ideological divisiveness in voting patterns through development of a Case Ideology Divisiveness score that is a weighted measure of vote divisiveness (the average justice deviation from the majority opinion) and depth of divisiveness (the number of unique concurring and dissenting opinions filed). The score is reported for criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, and due process cases. The analysis then examines the score for 16 categories of criminal procedure case types and reports mean comparison data. Trends and implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Data Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%