Abstract
ABSTRACTMcGuire et al. (2009) set out to develop a better measure of the policy content of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions. They justify their measure using a formal model, which they test empirically. This empirical test, however, omits all cases that arrived at the Court on appeal from the state supreme courts. We argue that there are plausible reasons to believe that the decision calculus modeled by these authors may vary when considering cases that are appealed from the states and, thus, that McGuire et al.'s empirical results may not hold in the state context. This article tests that proposition. Our results diverge from those found in national courts and have significant implications for scholars of state and national political institutions, public policy, and judicial politics.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.