Justice Bork, or, be careful which supreme court nominees you choose to fight

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThis study uses counterfactual analysis to assess whether a hypothetical Supreme Court with Robert Bork as a member would have decided cases differently than the actual Supreme Court.MethodsI utilize both a qualitative analysis, and a quantitative Bayesian counterfactual model to predict Supreme Court case outcomes from 1988 to 2012.ResultsThe results show that several salient cases would have been decided differently, most of the decisions decided over the time frame would have remained unchanged. I also find that a hypothetical Supreme Court with Robert Bork as an associate justice would not have radically shifted rightward. Rather, the results show a brief rightward shift from 1991 to 1994, and a much longer and stronger rightward shift occurring after 2001.ConclusionThe results suggest that scholars and pundits need to think more carefully about which Supreme Court nominees are should be contested in the advice and consent process – at least on political or ideological grounds.