Seventeen thought-provoking essays in this sophisticated yet accessible reader demonstrate how political scientists conduct research on law, courts, and the judicial process, and at the same time answer interesting, substantive questions. Illustrating the breadth and depth of judicial politics studies, the essays convey to students the array of contemporary thinking -- both theoretical and methodological -- at work in the field. The book's five parts cover subjects taught in most judicial politics courses. Because each chapter stands alone, instructors have the flexibility of assigning less than the whole book or chapters in a different order. Topics examined range from information used by voters electing judges to the credibility of victims of sexualized violence. Accessible to both undergraduate and graduate students, Contemplating Courts offers fascinating views ...
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 2: Electing Judges
- Chapter 3: Lobbying for Justice: The Rise of Organized Conflict in the Politics of Federal Judgeships
- Chapter 4: Capital Investments in the U.S. Supreme Court: Winning with Washington Representation
- Chapter 5: The Mysterious Case of Establishment Clause Litigation: How Organized Litigants Foiled Legal Change
- Chapter 6: Plea Bargaining and Local Legal Culture
- Chapter 7: Imagined Pasts: Sexualized Violence and the Revision of Truth
- Chapter 8: The Fired Football Coach (Or, How Trial Courts Make Policy)
- Chapter 9: Patterns of Appellate Litigation, 1945–1990
- Chapter 10: Decision Making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals
- Chapter 11: The Dynamics and Determinants of Agenda Change in the Rehnquist Court
- Chapter 12: By Consent of the Governed: Directions in Constitutional Theory
- Chapter 13: The Attitudinal Model
- Chapter 14: The Role of the Supreme Court in American Society: Playing the Reconstruction Game
Copyright © 1995 Congressional Quarterly Inc.
1414 22nd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed and bound in the United States of America.
Art director, cover: Anne Masters Design, Inc.
Original painting, cover: James Yang
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Contemplating courts / Lee Epstein, editor.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-87187-983-2 (cloth: alk. paper). — ISBN 0-87187-982-4 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Judicial process—United States. 2. Justice, Administration of—United States. 3. Courts—United States. I. Epstein, Lee, 1958-
For Harold[Page vi]
A few years ago, one of my former doctoral students asked me if I knew of any good readers for an undergraduate course on the judicial process. He was just getting settled in a new academic position and realized that he would need to order books for the coming semester. I responded with a few suggestions but, in the end, none of the current offerings satisfied either of us.
What we both wanted was something akin to Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer's Congress Reconsidered—a book of original, thought-provoking, and timely essays tailored to the needs of political science students; a book that would give students a compelling sample of our discipline's scholarship without the unnecessary jargon; a book whose contents could be appreciated by scholars and students alike. Unfortunately, nothing like that existed for the study of the judicial process; there was no Courts Reconsidered.
When conversations with others confirmed this void, I resolved to fill it by bringing the equivalent of Congress Reconsidered to law and courts-oriented classes. This meant, for one thing, aiming at something short of comprehensiveness. Just as Congress Reconsidered does not cover every aspect of legislative politics, Contemplating Courts does not provide an in-depth look at every dimension of judicial politics. That is because instructors typically use these kinds of books in conjunction with other texts or readings. By the same token, just as Congress Reconsidered presents many approaches to the study of legislative politics, I wanted the book to reflect the pluralism of the field of law and courts. Scholars of judicial politics are a varied lot, focusing on diverse substantive topics and invoking myriad research strategies. So I thought it especially important that the book convey to students the wide array of contemporary thinking on judicial processes.
With these goals in mind, Contemplating Courts was developed. The scope of the resulting book is revealed in its part titles—“Actors in the Legal System,” “Trial Courts,” “Lower Appellate Courts,” “The U.S. Supreme Court,” and “The Impact of Courts.” These are subjects covered in virtually every judicial politics course, and instructors will be able to integrate the essays from each of the parts, in any order they choose, into their syllabi. One of the advantages of a book of readings, of course, is the flexibility it provides.
The choice of essayists also reflects my goals about the scope of the volume, for they are as varied as the field itself. Some of the contributors use numerical data to make their points; others take more contextual and historical routes. What is more, because the contributors [Page xii]range from Harold J. Spaeth—a founder of the modern-day study of judicial politics—to Lauren Bowen—a young but impressive Ph.D.—the chapters reflect the thinking of more than just a generation of legal analysts. They encapsulate older perspectives that have withstood the test of time and newer ones that seem quite promising.
My suggestions to the essayists were simple. First, their chapters needed to be accessible to college students. Although graduate students will find the book useful, I did not want the contributors to lose sight of the fact that undergraduates were a primary audience. As they mapped out their chapters, then, I hoped that they would consider how upper-division students would react to their work. I also asked them to avoid long literature reviews or other information that textbooks often provide.
Second, I advised the authors to use statistics or mathematics if their work required them. After all, it is important to show students how political scientists go about answering interesting substantive questions; and many scholars use abstract formalizations to represent political processes mathematically, invoke statistical techniques to test their expectations against data, and so forth. I did, however, ask the authors who used statistics or mathematics in their chapters to take great care to explain their procedures clearly.
The chapters more than exceeded my expectations. The authors raise interesting research questions, use appropriate analytic strategies, and convey their messages in accessible prose without jargon. In the end, I had to make only two adjustments to the original plan. First, I supplemented the essays with a chapter on research design. “Studying Law and Courts” (Chapter 1) provides students with an overview of the key elements contained in most sociolegal research and defines important terms used in other chapters, such as “variables,” “statistical significance,” and so forth. Second, I added methodological appendices that specifically address the logic of regression, probit, and logit models. Statistically speaking, these are the most sophisticated tools used in the book. And, while the essayists who rely on them provide excellent explanations, I thought it best to set them out clearly and uniformly in an appendix so that interested students could develop further intuitions about the way they worked.
In the end, my greatest hope is that Contemplating Courts has as long an academic life as Congress Reconsidered, now in its fifth edition. The contributors and I have tried to produce a book that will accomplish that end. Please let me know where we have succeeded and where we have not so that any necessary adjustments can be made in future editions.
In editing this volume, I have accrued many, many debts. Now is the time to pay off at least some of them. First and foremost, I thank the people at CQ Press. This is the fourth book I have published with them, and I will keep coming back as long as they will have me. As far as I'm concerned, they run the most professional shop in the business, never sacrificing integrity for profit. Brenda Carter, CQ Press acquisitions editor, deserves special recognition. Despite her job title, Brenda did more than “acquire” this volume; she guided it [Page xiii]through every stage of the process and offered many constructive suggestions. She was never shy about letting me know when and where I had gone astray—the most fundamentally important task an editor can perform. I am also grateful to Nancy Lammers, a director at Congressional Quarterly, who commissioned the wonderful cover art, among other things. Our copy editor, Joanne Ainsworth, too, deserves kudos. Joanne faced the daunting task of making sense out of seventeen chapters, written by scholars with significantly different theoretical, methodological, and substantive concerns. And she came through splendidly. I know I speak for all the contributors in acknowledging her efforts on our behalf. Finally, to Ann O'Malley I offer my sincere thanks for considerably smoothing the production process.
This brings me to the essayists, who all worked hard to produce their chapters. Without their outstanding contributions this book would not have been as strong, or even possible. I am especially indebted to Lawrence Baum, Gregory A. Caldeira, Joseph F. Kobylka, Lynn Mather, and Thomas G. Walker—all of whom provided valuable moral support and concrete suggestions as the project progressed. Jeffrey A. Segal was, as always, a constant source of inspiration. He never begged off debating even the most minor of points, and more often than not he forced me to reconsider my position. Throughout this project, indeed throughout my entire professional life, he has been my biggest fan and my harshest critic. I am grateful for both.
My third set of debts is to the members of the Department of Political Science at Washington University. I can hardly imagine a better set of colleagues. They are intellectually engaging and congenial—an unbeatable combination. It is hard to know how to thank two of them, in particular. As chair of the department, John Sprague has supported all my efforts with more force than I could possibly deserve. As a colleague with an interest in public law issues, Jack Knight has done much to reshape my thinking about judicial politics; he is always ready to read the roughest of drafts and listen to even my most half-baked ideas.
Finally, a few personal acknowledgments. My parents, Ann and Ken Spole, have supported my career with genuine enthusiasm, as has my husband, Jay (although occasionally with less enthusiasm, especially after long days at the office). My professional life would have been far different had the personal side been any less. Last but surely not least is Harold J. Spaeth, to whom I dedicate this book. What can I say about a man whose work I so admire, whose professional life I seek to emulate? He is one of the true heroes of my generation of scholars, and I am proud to count him among my closest friends. Harold, this one's for you.LeeEpstein, Washington University in St. Louis[Page xiv]
Lawrence Baum is professor of political science at Ohio State University. He is the author of American Courts (1994) and The Supreme Court (1995). His research has dealt with issues such as the sources of change in Supreme Court policy and interactions between the Supreme Court and lower courts. He is currently engaged in research on assessment of explanations for the behavior of judges.
Lauren Bowen is an assistant professor of political science at John Carroll University. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Kentucky in 1992, writing a dissertation entitled, “Attorney Advertising in the Wake of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977): A Study of Judicial Impact.” The major findings of the dissertation are forthcoming in American Politics Quarterly. She is currently researching the impact of sexual harassment decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court on all affected populations.
Gregory A. Caldeira is a professor of political science at Ohio State University. He received a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1978. He has published articles on the courts and American politics in the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Politics, the Law and Society Review, the British Journal of Political Science, and many other journals. Currently he is engaged in programs of research on the role and effect of organized interests in the formation of the Supreme Court's agenda; the relationship between interest groups and the Senate in the selection of federal judges, especially on the Supreme Court; and public attitudes toward the European Court of Justice and national high courts in the European Union.
Charles M. Cameron received his Ph.D. from Princeton University and is now assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. A former Brookings Fellow and recipient of grants from the National Science Foundation, his work has appeared in leading journals of political science. He is a specialist in applied formal theory, who, with Jeffrey Segal and Donald Songer, is writing a book on the judicial hierarchy.
Thomas W. Church is professor and chair of the Political Science Department at the State University of New York, Albany. He received his B.A. from Whitman College and his [Page xvi]Ph.D. from Cornell University. His research has focused on the operation of civil and criminal trial courts and, more generally, on issues relating to the intersection of law and public policy. His most recent work is a comparative study of environmental law and policy in the United States and northern Europe.
Lee Epstein is professor of political science and resident fellow of the Business, Law, and Economics Center at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri. She received her Ph.D. from Emory University in 1983. She is the author of Conservatives in Court (1985), and the coauthor of several books, including The Supreme Court and Legal Change (1992) with Joseph F. Kobylka, and Constitutional Law for a Changing America (1995) with Thomas G. Walker. Her articles on the Supreme Court, interest groups, and related topics have appeared in political science and law journals, including the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics. Her current research invokes game theory to study judicial decision making.
Charles H. Franklin is associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. In addition to work on public opinion and the Supreme Court, he has written on U.S. Senate campaigns and party identification. His articles have appeared in the American Political Science Review and the American Journal of Political Science.
Leslie Friedman Goldstein is the author of Constitutional Rights of Women (1988), In Defense of the Text (1991), and Contemporary Cases in Women's Rights (1994) and is the editor of Feminist Jurisprudence: The Difference Debate (1992). She is professor of political science at the University of Delaware and former chair of the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association.
Christine B. Harrington is the director of the Institute for Law and Society and associate professor of politics at New York University. She has published articles on the politics of court reform, dispute processing and alternative dispute resolution, regulatory litigation, legal ideology, constitutive and interpretive sociolegal theory, and the American legal profession. She is the author of Shadow Justice: The Ideology and Institutionalization of Alternatives to Court (1985); the coauthor, with Lief Carter, of Administrative Law and Politics (1991); and the coeditor, with Paul Brace and Gary King, of The Presidency in American Politics (1989), and, with Maureen Cain, of Lawyers in the Postmodern World: Translation and Transgression (1994).
Joseph F. Kobylka is associate professor of political science at Southern Methodist University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. He is the author of The [Page xvii]Politics of Obscenity (1991) and the coauthor of The Supreme Court and Legal Change (1992) and Public Interest Law (1992), both with Lee Epstein. He has also published articles in a variety of law and political science journals. He is finishing a judicial biography of Justice Harry A. Blackmun and beginning a study of the judicial manifestations of the modern controversy surrounding church-state relations.
Liane C. Kosaki received her Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She is currently visiting assistant professor of political science at Beloit College. She has written numerous papers on public opinion and the Supreme Court and is currently working on a book, with Charles H. Franklin, on the subject.
Kevin T. McGuire is assistant professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. He received his Ph.D. from Ohio State University. His publications include The Supreme Court Bar: Legal Elites in the Washington Community (1993) and several articles on decision making in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lynn Mather is professor of government at Dartmouth College. Her research has focused on trial courts in the United States. She has published Plea Bargaining or Trial? and Empirical Theories about Courts, as well as various journal articles. Her current research addresses the role of lawyers in divorce cases, exploring issues of lawyer-client interaction, gender difference among divorce lawyers, the effect of mediation on lawyers, and the nature of legal negotiation. Professor Mather has served as chair of the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association (1993–1994) and treasurer of the Law and Society Association (1983–1987).
David C. Nixon is a graduate student in political science at Washington University in St. Louis. He specializes in American politics and political methodology and is currently completing his doctoral dissertation on relations between legislators and bureaucrats.
Richard L. Pacelle, Jr., is assistant professor of political science at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. He did his graduate work at Ohio State University and is the author of The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda: From the New Deal to the Reagan Administration. His current research is concerned with the notion of issue evolution in the Supreme Court.
Gerald N. Rosenberg is associate professor in the Department of Political Science and lecturer in law at the University of Chicago. He earned a master's degree in politics and philosophy from Oxford University, a doctor of law degree from the University of Michigan, [Page xviii]and a doctorate in political science from Yale University. A member of the Washington, D.C., bar, he is the author of The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? (1991).
Kim Lane Scheppele is Arthur F. Thurnau Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Policy and adjunct associate professor of law at the University of Michigan. She received her doctoral degree in sociology in 1985 from the University of Chicago. She is the author of Legal Secrets: Equality and Efficiency in the Common Law and has written extensively about rape, domestic violence, abortion, and legal theory. She is currently working on a new book about the development of constitutional consciousness in a post-communist society, having spent the 1994–1995 academic year working at the Hungarian Constitutional Court.
Jeffrey A. Segal is professor of political science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He received his doctoral degree from Michigan State University in 1983. His books include The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model (1993) with Harold J. Spaeth, and The Supreme Court Compendium (1994) with Lee Epstein, Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas G. Walker. His articles on the Supreme Court have appeared in the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Politics, and elsewhere.
Donald R. Songer is professor of political science at the University of South Carolina. He received his doctorate from the University of North Carolina in 1975. He is currently directing a project funded by the National Science Foundation to create a multi-user database on the decisions of the U.S. courts of appeals from 1925 to 1988. His work on appellate court decision making and judicial impact has appeared in a number of journals, including the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Politics, and Judicature.
Harold J. Spaeth is professor of political science at Michigan State University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati and his J.D. from the University of Michigan. He is the author or coauthor of more than ten books, including Supreme Court Decision Making (1976) and The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model (1993). Professor Spaeth is also principal investigator of the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database.[Page xix]
Thomas G. Walker is professor of political science at Emory University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Kentucky. He is the author or coauthor of ten books, including A Court Divided (1988), which won the prestigious V. O. Key, Jr., Award for the best book on southern politics. Currently he is engaged, with Lee Epstein and William Dixon, in a study of U.S. Supreme Court decision making in times of international crises.
Daniel S. Ward is assistant professor of political science at Rice University. He received his Ph.D. from New York University in 1989. His research has focused on political institutions and legislative behavior. Among his publications are articles in the Journal of Politics, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Comparative Politics, and Party Politics.
John R. Wright is professor of political science at George Washington University. His research on interest groups and various aspects of American politics has been published in the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Politics, and other specialized journals.[Page xx]
Reference Material[Page 421][Page 422]
Appendix A: Regression and Pooled Cross-Sectional Time Series[Page 423]
Many of the chapters in this book examine the relationships among some plausibly interconnected variables. Often, the authors seek to explain one particular variable. This is called the dependent variable. Independent variables are those that are thought to cause variation in the dependent variable. Consider the relationship, depicted in Figure A-1, between a dependent variable (Y)—the number of cases filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals—and an explanatory variable (X)—time (fiscal year). Note that for each observation in this set of data, the values of X and Y define a unique point. So, for example, the number of cases filed in 1915 is 1,452; in 1916, 1,518; and so forth. Also observe that a positive relationship exists between X and Y. That is, higher values of Y are associated with higher values of X, while lower values of Y are associated with lower values of X. Here, this means that the number of cases filed has increased over time.
It is one thing to say that two variables are associated, as is true of the variables cases filed and time. But it is quite another matter to talk about the strength of the relationship between a dependent and an independent variable, a desirable undertaking in social scientific research. That is why scholars invoke regression analysis: it provides a robust technique for estimating the strength of the relationship between variables.
The mechanics of linear regression are relatively straightforward.1 In its simplest form, it begins with the assumption that the relationship between an independent and dependent variable is a straight line that can be expressed in this way:
where Y is the dependent variable (in our example, the number of cases filed), coefficient a is the height of the line (called an intercept, or constant), coefficient b is the steepness of the line (called the slope), and X is the independent variable (here, time). Various computer-driven statistical software packages can be used to obtain estimates of the coefficients for a and b.2 For the example shown in Figure A-1, a regression indicates that Y is linearly related to X in the following way,3[Page 424]Figure A-1 Caseload of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 1915–1936
This tells us that the number of case filings increased by about 120 each year. In addition, these estimates can be used to generate a prediction about the number of cases filed in any given year. The predicted value of the dependent variable for a given observation is the value of the independent variable multiplied by its coefficient, plus the intercept. Thus, in Figure A-1, an observation with a value of 3 (in our case that would be the third year, 1917) is predicted to have a value of 1,271. Or,[Page 425]
Interestingly, as this number makes clear, we cannot perfectly predict the number of cases filed based solely on knowledge of what year it is; the actual number of cases filed in 1917 was 1,446, not 1,271. The line fitted to the data in Figure A-1 reinforces this conclusion because not all the observations fall on it. What this means is that the relationship between time and cases filed is not exact.
What would an exact fit look like? Consider Figure A-2, a display of a hypothetical set of caseload data. The regression estimates for these data are:
This means that case filings increase by 100 with each passing year and that the predicted value for year 1 (1915) would be 1,000; for year 2, 1,100; and so forth. But note the difference between these data and those displayed in Figure A-1: Y is an exact linear function of X. If X increases one unit in value then Y increases exactly 100 units; no observations sit off the regression line. In other words, if the year is known, the number of case filings can be perfectly predicted.
Unfortunately, as Lewis-Beck (1980, 10) makes clear, very few relationships in the social sciences are this exact. More tend to look like Figure A-1 than Figure A-2. Accordingly, it would be better to rewrite equation A-1 in this way:
where e represents the existence of error. It captures the fact that, in most of our work, X will not perfectly predict Y, just as time does not perfectly predict case filings. The smaller the errors, the more accurate the predictions, or the more fully one can claim to have “explained” the dependent variable.Multiple Regression
What causes error? Why doesn't every value of Y fall exactly on the line depicted in Figure A-1? Answers to these questions abound. But one that readily comes to mind in our illustration is this: as Christine B. Harrington and Daniel Ward suggest in Chapter 9, we would not expect “time” to be the sole cause of variation in the dependent variable. Other factors, such as increases in population and in the number of judges, probably affect case filings, as well. The same holds for almost all political phenomena: they are best explained by more than one independent variable. To understand why, consider all, or at least some, of the factors affecting a voter's choice in an election. A bivariate model (that is, one that includes only one independent variable, as in our use of time to predict caseload) would [Page 426]take into account only one explanatory variable, say, party identification. In a multivariate model (one that includes more than one independent variable) many other explanatory factors are considered, such as a person's gender, education, race, or preference on specific policy items (for example, abortion). In this instance, as in most in the social sciences, it is clear that a multivariate model would provide a more realistic picture of the voting decision.Figure A-2 Hypothetical Caseload Data Showing Exact Linear Relationship between X and Y
Happily, regression with one independent variable (bivariate), as in the previous example, is easily generalized to multiple independent variables (multivariate). Each coefficient in a multivariate regression indicates the expected change in the dependent variable for a hypothetical one-unit change in the independent variable, holding all other variables constant. For example, Harrington and Ward estimate that the effect of per capita income on private civil appeals is −0.746 (see Table 9-2). Each additional dollar of per capita income in a circuit reduces the predicted number of appeals per 100,000 population by −0.746. [Page 427]Taking the average circuit population of 21,000,000 as our baseline, a circuit with a per capita income of $20,000 is predicted to have 157 fewer appeals than a circuit with a per capita income of $21,000, all else being equal (–0.746 × 1 × 210 = 156.6).Cross-Sectional versus Longitudinal Data
As Harrington and Ward note, data may be either cross-sectional or longitudinal For longitudinal data, an identical unit (say, a single appellate court) is observed at multiple time points. (Figure A-1 provides an example of longitudinal data.) The effect of an explanatory variable, as indicated by the regression coefficient for that variable, is the predicted change in the dependent variable resulting from a hypothetical increase of one unit of the explanatory variable, holding all other explanatory variables constant. This is the more traditional understanding of what is normally considered an effect.
For cross-sectional data, multiple units (say all U.S. Courts of Appeals) are observed at a single moment. Rather than explaining changes in the dependent variable over time, regression with cross-sectional data explains differences in the dependent variable between observational units. The effect of a variable, as indicated by the regression coefficient, is the change in the prediction of the dependent variable for a hypothetical change of one unit in the explanatory variable at that time.
The distinction between longitudinal and cross-sectional effects may seem subtle, but it is crucial when both cross-sectional and longitudinal data are combined, as they are in Chapter 9. This is called a pooled cross-sectional design.
Consider a hypothetical data set consisting of three observational units observed at three time points each, as in Figure A-3. Each unit is indicated by a unique symbol. There are three observations for each unit, representing three different time points.
What effect should we infer in this example? The cross-sectional effect is a positive one. Units with higher values for the explanatory variable are associated with units with higher values for the dependent variable. The longitudinal effect is a negative one, however. For each observational unit, increases in the explanatory variable are associated with decreases in the dependent variable over time. This hypothetical example illustrates that two logically separate effects are present when longitudinal and cross-sectional observations are pooled together. Of course, more subtle confounding scenarios are possible. The cross-sectional and longitudinal effects may be in the same direction but may differ in magnitude. Separating the effects is crucial to establish a valid description of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
The most common approach to this problem is regression with dummy variables. Dummy, or dichotomous, variables are typically coded as 1 (the characteristic is observed, the event occurs) or 0 (the characteristic is not observed, the event does not occur). In [Page 428]addition to the explanatory variables of interest, dummy variables for all but one of the time points or all but one of the observational units are included in the regression. Harrington and Ward adopt this tactic by including forty-five dummy variables (one each for the years 1945–1990) in the regression. This controls for variation over time and guarantees that the regression-estimated effects of the explanatory variables are strictly cross-sectional in nature. The alternative method is to include ten dummy variables (one each for ten of the circuits) in the regression. This technique would eliminate all cross-sectional effects, guaranteeing that the regression-estimated effects are strictly longitudinal in nature. Obviously, Harrington and Ward are more interested in the former approach because they are interested in variation between circuits and not variation over time.Figure A-3 Hypothetical Pooled Cross-Sectional Data Set
Regression with dummy variables controls for variation over time or variation across units. As implemented in Harrington and Ward, the technique removes all time-specific variation by, roughly speaking, averaging over time for each circuit. The analysis of interest, [Page 429]explaining differences between circuits, may then proceed. Of course, this technique may obscure what the data can tell us, for it eliminates all longitudinal information. But the technique's virtue is that the inferences about effects are no longer plagued by the possibility of confounding factors. We can have confidence that we are properly estimating the cross-sectional effect of the independent variables.Notes
1. I adapt this discussion from Lewis-Beck 1980, which provides an excellent and straightforward introduction to regression analysis.
2. I used SYSTAT to estimate the coefficients depicted in equation A-2. Many other statistical packages are available to estimate a linear regression.
3. A regression chooses the slope for a line by minimizing the sum of the squared vertical differences between the data points and the line implied by the regression estimate. Hence, linear regression is also referred to as ordinary least-squares regression.
4. To simplify presentation I used a counter to represent time, rather than year, so that 1915 = 1; 1916 = 2; and so forth.
Appendix B: Probit and Logit[Page 430]
A great many political variables are discrete: an event either happens or it doesn't; we either observe a characteristic or we don't. Probit and logit models are common statistical tools for analyzing such discrete (or dichotomous) dependent variables—outcomes that can take on only one of two possible values.1 In Chapter 4, for example, Kevin T. McGuire uses the probit model to predict whether a petitioner will be successful in the Supreme Court or not. In Chapter 10, Jeffrey A. Segal, Donald R. Songer, and Charles M. Cameron invoke the logit model to determine the circumstances under which the Supreme Court will uphold or strike down a search and seizure. Charles H. Franklin and Liane C. Kosaki apply the logit model in Chapter 15 to explain individuals’ awareness of particular Court decisions. Finally, Lauren Bowen, in Chapter 16, uses logit to discover whether or not attorneys advertise their services. To put it another way, all four of these chapters are seeking to predict dichotomous dependent variables: petitioner success (they win or they don't); court outcomes (liberal or conservative); public awareness of Court decisions (they are aware or not); and attorney behavior (they advertise or they don't).
It is easiest to understand and interpret the probit and logit models by focusing on the probabilities of observing these discrete dependent variables. That is, what are the chances of observing one outcome rather than the other? Suppose that the probability, which may be represented as πi, of observing the characteristic in question is somewhere between zero and one for case i. In McGuire's context, this is the equivalent of saying that the probability of a petitioner's success is πi. Instead of presuming that each individual or, in McGuire's case, petitioner has the same probability of success, we have some notions about the kinds of petitioners that are likely to succeed and the kinds that are likely to fail in a given case. A good social scientist specifies plausible and interesting conditions that affect the probability of observing a particular value of the dependent variable. McGuire uses the status of the lawyers on a case to predict success, with the perfectly straightforward hypothesis that more experienced lawyers are more successful. Segal, Songer, and Cameron use the facts of a case to predict whether or not a search will be upheld. And Bowen suggests that attorneys who favor advertising are more likely to advertise than those who do not. These explanatory variables (also called independent variables) are used to test whether the conditions [Page 431]they indicate increase or decrease the probability of observing the dependent variable to a statistically significant degree.2 For McGuire, then, the expectation is that as the independent variable (attorney status) increases (that is, as attorneys achieve higher status), the dependent variable (the chances of Court success) increases too.
Independent variables are significant to varying degrees in predicting the dependent variable. Logit and probit models employ a numerical technique, maximum likelihood, to derive estimates of coefficients for each of the explanatory variables. These coefficients, which may be represented as β, indicate the direction and strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. If a coefficient is positive, then larger values of that independent variable are associated with a higher probability of observing a 1 for the dependent variable. Bowen, for example, finds that as attorney's attitudes toward advertising become more positive, their probability of advertising increases. The positive coefficients for attitudes in her table support that assertion. McGuire and Segal, Songer, and Cameron find support for their main hypotheses as well.
Regardless of the sign of β, smaller values of β result in flatter curves and less responsiveness between the independent variable and the dependent variable. If β is zero, then there is virtually no difference (in predicted probability of observing a 1 for the dependent variable) between observations with high values for the independent variable and those with low values. If a coefficient is large enough, we may legitimately conclude that the independent variable is a significant aid in predicting the dependent variable.
The relationship between an explanatory variable and the probability of observing the characteristic indicated by the dependent variable is illustrated in Figure B-1, for three possible values of β. To see how this works, consider the analysis in the chapter by Segal, Songer, and Cameron, in which the odds that a search will be upheld by the Supreme Court are examined. The estimated coefficient for probable cause is 0.94 (see Table 10-5). This corresponds to the positive curve in Figure B-1. At maximum effect, if X increases from 0 to 1 (which is to say, if the authorities meet the requirements to show probable cause in their search), the probability that the search will be upheld increases from approximately 38 percent to 62 percent. As a second example, McGuire's estimated coefficient for party status in model 1 is 0.05. The curve for that coefficient is not illustrated in Figure B-1. We know, however, that the curve will be flatter than those in the figure because the coefficient is nearer to zero. It turns out that at its maximum effect, as attorney status increases from 1 to 10 (which is to say, as status increases from the lowest to the highest), the probability of success before the Supreme Court increases from approximately 44 percent to 56 percent.
The McGuire example illustrates a problem: when do we declare that a relatively minor influence (such as party status) is insignificant? The effect of that variable at its maximum, increases the odds of winning by a mere 10 percent. The data in McGuire's Table 4-5[Page 432]indicate that this variable is not significant at the .05 level for four of the five models estimated. One way to think about significance of effects is to realize that estimates for β are always imperfect. Indeed, one should view an estimate for β as a “best guess,” which could be expected to vary within some range just by chance. A simple misprint of the data in a primary source, or the accidental omission of an observation in the records could conceivably alter the statistical results. If the expected range of the coefficient is very large, then we have less confidence that the estimate we obtained is a good one. And if that range includes zero, then we have some reason to question whether β is different from zero. Perhaps β really is zero (the independent variable is completely unrelated to the dependent variable), but mere chance has produced the estimate we observe. That is the logic behind the statistical tests on practically every multivariate model in social science.Figure B-1 The Effect of Explanatory Variables
Statistical analysis allows us to state that we have 95 percent confidence that the real value for β lies within 1.96 standard errors of our estimate. So if β is more than two [Page 433]standard deviations larger (or smaller) than zero, we are 95 percent confident that the independent variable is related to the dependent variable (β is nonzero). To revisit one of our running examples, McGuire's model 1 estimates β for party status as 0.05 with a standard error of 0.02. We can declare with 95 percent confidence that the true value for β lies between 0.01 and 0.09. This range may seem fairly large. The important point is that it does not include zero. We are 95 percent confident that party status does help to predict success in the Court. Yet the coefficient for that variable does not lie more than 1.96 standard errors from zero for McGuire's models 2 through 5. Overall, we should conclude that party status has a minor role at most and probably does not have any effect at all on success before the Supreme Court.Notes
1. Dichotomous variables, also called dummy variables, are typically coded as 1 (the characteristic is observed, the event occurs) or 0 (the characteristic is not observed, the event does not occur). To analyze such variables, as I note above, scholars often invoke logit (the logistic specification) and probit (the normal curve specification) models. For more information on the difference between the two, see Aldrich and Nelson 1984.
2. When more than one explanatory, or independent, variable is included in a model, it is called a multivariate model. Most political phenomena are best modeled through multivariate techniques. To understand why, consider the factors affecting a voter's choice in the ballot box. A bivariate model would take into account only one explanatory variable, say, party identification. In a multivariate model, many other explanatory factors are considered, such as a person's gender, education, race, or preference on specific policy items (such as abortion).
Appendix C: Conducting Research on Law and Courts: Sources of Data[Page 434]
In what follows, we provide information on data sources that students might find useful in their research. Two words of clarification are in order. The first is that we aimed at something short of comprehensiveness, choosing instead to describe sources that are unique or are readily available and accessible. Second, we occasionally mention the archive of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The ICPSR's archive is a major repository for databases collected by social scientists. ICPSR disseminates these databases (along with accompanying documentation) free of charge to faculty, staff, and students of colleges and universities that are members of the consortium; individuals at nonmember schools can gain access to the data for a fee. For more details, contact your school's ICPSR representative or write to: ICPSR, The University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.Actors in the Legal System
Information about state court judges is available from a number of sources. The Book of the States (1992) lists the plans invoked by states to select their judges; Hoffman's The American Bench (various years) identifies current state court judges, as does Want's Federal-State Court Directory (various years). State Court Caseload Statistics (Court Statistics Project, various years) contains data on court caseloads, the number of authorized judgeships per state, and the structure of state court systems. Some of this information is also available in Epstein et al. 1994, Tables 10–18 through 10–25, along with data on the U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of state court decisions (Table 10–26).
Many volumes contain information on federal court judges. The U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary keeps records of federal judicial nomination proceedings; Mersky and Jacobstein (various years) have compiled official congressional hearings and reports of U.S. Supreme Court nominations since 1916. Tables 4–10 through 4–14 in Epstein et al. 1994 also include information on Supreme Court nominees, such as Senate votes and interest group participation. In 1958, the Senate Judiciary Committee produced a useful [Page 435]report containing the names of judges who served on the U.S. circuit courts from 1801 through 1958. More recent information can be gleaned from Brownson's 1993 Judicial Staff Directory (1993), Want's Federal-State Court Directory (various years), Hoffman's The American Bench (various years), and Judges of the United States (1983). These volumes identify all current members of the federal judiciary and provide some biographical information. Data on the number of authorized judgeships and on caseloads can be found in the annual reports of the director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (various years). The Statistical Abstract of the United States (prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) and Epstein et al. 1994 (Tables 10-4 through 10-6, 10–12) also contain caseload data. Reams and Haworth (1978) and Reams (1994) have compiled virtually all congressional hearings and reports on matters pertaining to the federal courts. Finally, the ICPSR-archived database Survey of Judges on the Role of Courts in American Society (no. 7824) contains the results of a questionnaire put to federal and state court judges in five districts. The data include information about the amount of time judges spend on certain kinds of cases, their suggestions for dispute resolution, and their demographic characteristics.
Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory (various years) and The American Bar (various years) list the names of attorneys practicing in the United States. Who's Who in American Law contains brief profiles of prominent lawyers, judges, and professors. The American Bar Foundation has produced a series of statistical profiles of the U.S. legal profession (see especially Curran et al. 1986). It also has published a report on legal education in the United States (American Bar Association 1991). Several ICPSR-archived studies are worthy of note. John P. Heinz and Edward O. Laumann's “Chicago Lawyers Survey, 1975” (no. 8218) contains information on the social organization of the Chicago Bar; Ronald L. Hirsch's “National Survey of Lawyers’ Career Satisfaction, 1984” (no. 8975) holds data designed to assess career satisfaction among young lawyers, such as their job descriptions, educational background, and psychological characteristics. The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), “National Prosecutors Survey, 1990,” also archived at the ICPSR (no. 9579), contains the results of a survey of chief state prosecuting attorneys about the handling of felony cases within their districts.
Information on interest groups that litigate is available from several sources. Phase II of the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database contains the following information on amicus curiae participation in the U.S. Supreme Court case: total number of amicus curiae participants in a given case, the solicitor general's role, citation to amici in the Court's opinions, and the names and positions taken by amici.1 Tables 7–20 through 7–22 in Epstein et al. 1994 provide summary information on the participation of groups during certain periods of the Court's history, as does Lawrence 1990 (Appendix C), which also gives the win-loss records of key organizations. O'Connor and Epstein 1989, the Council for Public Interest Law 1976, and the Foundation for Public Affairs 1988 house [Page 436]descriptions of many public interest law groups. Finally, Kurland and Casper (various years) have compiled the briefs of the parties and amici curiae filed in landmark constitutional cases.Trial Courts
State court caseload data are available in State Court Caseload Statistics; federal court data can be found in the annual reports of the director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The Statistical Abstract of the United States contains a good deal of longitudinal data on the caseloads of federal district courts, including the disposition of certain kinds of criminal disputes. Hoffman's The American Bench (various years) lists the names of current judges, as does Want's Federal-State Court Directory (various years). And Goldman (1965, 1991, 1993) provides a wealth of data on the background characteristics of U.S. district court judges.
Sources of data on crime and criminal justice in the United States include the many reports of the BJS: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions, and National Survey of Courts, to name just a few.2Crime in the United States, an annual publication of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), includes data on crimes reported by state and local authorities.3 The Statistical Abstract of the United States contains key tables included in these reports, such as crime rates by state, homicide victims by race and sex, and federal and state prisoner populations. Several ICPSR-archived studies are also worthy of note. They include Thomas W. Church's “Assessing Local Legal Culture” (no. 7808), which looks at local legal culture in four criminal courts (see Chapter 6 of this volume) and Nardulli, Eisenstein, and Flemming's “Comparing Court Case Processing in Nine Courts, 1979–1980” (no. 8621), which contains information on the characteristics of officials involved in the processing of court cases.4
Civil litigation is explored by Herbert M. Kritzer, David M. Trubek, William L. F. Felstiner, Joel B. Grossman, and Austin Sarat in Civil Litigation in the United States, 1977–1979 (ICPSR no. 7994). The database consists of information (such as negotiation proceedings and relations between clients and lawyers) on a sample of disputes processed in the United States between 1977 and 1979. In a related project (Survey of Households in Five Judicial Districts in the United States: A Civil Litigation Project, 1977–1979; ICPSR no. 9743), David M. Trubek et al. surveyed households involved in lawsuits. The database includes demographic characteristics and information about the disputes. Allan G. Lind et al. (ICPSR no. 9699) gathered data on tort litigants in three state courts in 1989 and 1990. And C. K. Rowland's Federal District Court Civil Decisions, 1981–1987: Detroit, Houston, and Kansas City (ICPSR no. 9367) contains information on unpublished civil cases filed in [Page 437]three district courts, including the date of termination, the nature of the decision, and whether a monetary award was granted.Lower Appellate Courts
For information on judges and caseloads, see State Court Caseload Statistics; the annual reports of the director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (various years); and Epstein et al. 1994, Tables 10-2 through 10-6. Donald R. Songer is in the process of amassing an important database on decisions made in U.S. courts of appeals, which includes information on case issues, the votes of judges, and amicus curiae participants, among many other things. The database will be archived with the ICPSR in 1996. Wheeler and Harrison (1989) have produced a useful volume detailing the history of the federal circuit courts; some of their data are summarized in Epstein et al. 1994, Table 10-1. A 1958 report of the Senate Judiciary Committee contains the names of judges who served on the U.S. circuit courts from 1801 through 1958. The 1993 Judicial Staff Directory (Brownson 1993), Want's Federal-State Court Directory (various years), The American Bench (Hoffman, various years), and Judges of the United States (1983) identify all current members of the federal judiciary. And Goldman (1965, 1991, 1993) provides information on the background characteristics of U.S. courts of appeals judges.5The U.S. Supreme Court
Epstein et al. 1994 contains data and other information on the following dimensions of Court activity: institutional development, review process, opinions and decisions, judicial backgrounds, voting patterns, and impact. Witt (1990) summarizes the holdings of landmark Court cases and provides brief biographies of the justices. And John R. Schmidhauser's ICPSR database (no. 4720) houses data on justices who served between 1789 and 1958. More comprehensive biographical information is available in Cushman (1993) and Friedman and Israel (1969–1978). Martin and Goehlert 1990 is an annotated biography of scholarly writings on the Court. The Constitution of the United States of America (prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress) lists state and federal acts overturned by the Supreme Court, as well as Court decisions overruled by subsequent decisions. Harold J. Spaeth's United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953-Current Terms (ICPSR no. 9422), provides a wealth of data beginning with the Warren Court through to the present.6 Among the many attributes of Court decisions coded by Spaeth are the names of the courts making the original decision, the identities of the parties to the cases, the policy context of a case, and the votes of each justice. Spaeth and Jan Palmer are now expanding the database to include the conference votes cast by justices of [Page 438]the Supreme Court under Fred M. Vinson (1946–1952 terms) and Earl Warren (1953–1968 terms) (see also Palmer 1990, which lists the conference votes in cases decided between the 1946 and 1953 terms).The Influence of Courts
The Gallup Poll, the Harris Survey, and the National Opinion Research Center are sources for data on public opinion and the judiciary, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. Chapter 8 of Epstein et al. 1994 contains many tables summarizing public views of the Supreme Court and issues related to the legal system. Questions reviewed include “How knowledgeable is the public about the Court?” and “To what extent does the public support the Court's resolution of specific controversial issues?” The results of a survey, done under the auspices of the BJS, on national attitudes toward courts and justice are reported in “Public Image of Courts, 1977” (ICPSR nos. 7703, 7704). No. 7703 is a survey of the general public; no. 7704 is a survey of judges, lawyers, and community leaders.
Data on the impact of court decisions on certain public policy questions are available in Chapter 9 of Epstein et al. 1994. Abortion, capital punishment, school desegregation, voter registration, and reapportionment are examples of the issues covered. Becker 1969, Becker and Feeley 1973, and Johnson and Canon 1984 contain information on the impact and implementation of many landmark decisions. Rosenberg 1991 also has a good deal of data on salient Court cases, especially Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973).Notes
1. These data will soon be deposited at the ICPSR.
2. Many of the studies from the BJS are archived with the ICPSR, including “Capital Punishment in the United States” (nos. 9210, 9337, 9507), “Census of State Felony Courts” (no. 8667), “Commercial Victimization Surveys” (no. 8002), and “Historic Statistics on Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions” (no. 8912).
3. Again, many of the FBI's studies are archived with the ICPSR, including its uniform crime reports (nos. 9252, 9226, 9163).
4. The ICPSR archive contains many other databases pertaining to matters of criminal justice. Interested readers should consult the ICPSR Guide to Resources and Services.
5. Along the same lines, Gerard Gryski, Gary Zuk, and Deborah Barrow have amassed an important database of the background characteristics and retirement patterns of lower federal court judges, Multi-User Database on the Attributes of U.S. Courts of Appeals Judges, 1891–1992, which will soon be archived with the ICPSR.
6. Spaeth is in the process of backdating the database to include the Vinson Court era.
References[Page 439]1990. Keeping a Watchful Eye. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.“Abortion.” 1988. Maclean's101: 8–16.“Abortion: Rights and Wrongs.” 1989. Public Opinion11: 35–39.Abortions Legal for Year, Performed for Thousands. 1973. New York Times, December 31, sec. A.1985. Justices and Presidents..2d ed.New York: Oxford University Press.1992. Page Puts on Big Rush in Minnesota Court Bid. Washington Post, October 24, sec. G..1992. Senate Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press., and .1991. We the People: Foundations. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press..1975. “The ‘Forgetful’ Voter and an Underreported Vote.” Public Opinion Quarterly39 (Summer): 227–231., and .1980. “Encore! The Forgetful Voter.” Public Opinion Quarterly44: 234–240., and .Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Various years. Annual Reports. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the U.S.1992. “Early Policy Influence of the National Grange at the Federal Level: 1878–1881.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association., and .Alan Guttmacher Institute.1976. Abortion 1974–1975: Need and Services in the United States, Each State and Metropolitan Area. New York: Planned Parenthood Federation of America.1975. “Probing the Bounds of Conventional Wisdom.” American Journal of Political Science19: 571–608., and .1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Sage University Paper series, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–045. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications., and .1968. “The Prosecutor's Role in Plea Bargaining.” University of Chicago Law Review36: 50–112.1975. “The Defense Attorney's Role in Plea Bargaining.” Yale Law Journal84: 1179–1314.[Page 440]1978. “Sentencing Reform and Prosecutorial Power: A Critique of Recent Proposals for ‘Fixed’ or ‘Presumptive’ Sentencing.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review126: 550–577.The American Bar. Various years. Sacramento, Calif.: Forster-Long.American Bar Association.1989. Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Code of Judicial Conduct. Chicago: American Bar Association.American Bar Association.1991. A Review of Legal Education in the United States, Fall 1990. Chicago: American Bar Association.American Enterprise. 1993. Vol. 4 (January/February), 103.“Americans Evaluate the Court System.” 1982. Public Opinion5: 24–27.1971. Patterns in Forcible Rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1993. Violent Shift in Abortion Battle. Washington Post, March 18, sec. C., and .1980. Birth of a Salesman: Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation. Chicago: American Bar Association Press.1981. “Lawyer Advertising and the First Amendment.” American Bar Foundation Journal1981: 967–1021.1991. Women Seeking Office Quickened by Thomas Flap. Christian Science Monitor, October 22, U.S. sec..1982. “Certiorari Decisions by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?” Polity15: 141–150., and .1935. The Symbols of Government. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.1991. “Political Attitudes and Behavior of Union Members: The 1990 Ohio Elections.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., , and .1986. Yukica-Dartmouth Case Raises Contract Questions. Washington Post, February 16, sec. E..1974. The Key to Judicial Merit Selection: The Nominating Process. Chicago: American Judicature Society., and .1989. “Friends and Neighbors Voting in Judicial Retention Elections: A Research Note Comparing Trial and Appellate Court Elections.” Western Political Quarterly42: 587–596., and .1976. “Environmental and Structural Variables as Determinants of Issues in State Courts of Last Resort.” American Journal of Political Science20: 97–115., and .1989. “The Legal Community and the Transformation of Disputes: The Settlement of Injunction Actions.” Law and Society Review23: 41–73.1931. “The Selection, Tenure, Retirement, and Compensation of Judges in Ohio.” University of Cincinnati Law Review5: 408–428.[Page 441]1992. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth..1992. Conflicting Loyalties: Law and Politics In The Attorney General's Office, 1789–1990. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.1987. Courts and Politics: The Federal Judicial System. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall..1971. “Ohio Judicial Elections—Nonpartisan Premises with Partisan Results.” Ohio State Law Journal32: 762–789..1972. Selection of Ohio Appellate Judges: A Case Study in Invisible Politics. In Political Behavior and Public Issues in Ohio, edited by JohnJ.Gargan and JamesG.Coke. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press..1985. “The Supreme Court and Public Opinion: Judicial Decision Making in the Post-New Deal Period.” Journal of Politics47: 652–666..1991. The Politics of Truth: From Marx to Foucault. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press..1993. Abortion Clinics Said to Be in Peril. New York Times, March 6, sec. A..1988. A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press., and .1993. Violence Is Driving Away Rural Abortion Clinics. Chicago Tribune, August 21, sec. A..1978. “Lower Court Response to Supreme Court Decisions: Reconsidering a Negative Picture.” Justice System Journal3: 208–219..1980. “Responses of Federal District Judges to Courts of Appeals Policies: An Exploration.” Western Political Quarterly33: 217–224..1983. “The Electoral Fates of Incumbent Judges in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas.” Judicature66: 420–430..1987. “Explaining the Vote in Judicial Elections: The 1984 Ohio Supreme Court Elections.” Western Political Quarterly40: 361–371..1988. “Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review82: 905–912..1988–1989. “Voters' Information in Judicial Elections: The 1986 Contests for the Ohio Supreme Court.” Kentucky Law Journal77: 645–670..1992a. “Membership Change and Collective Voting Change in the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics54: 3–24..1992b. The Supreme Court..4th ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.1994. American Courts. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin..1981–1982. “Research Note: The Evolution of Litigation in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 1895–1975.” Law and Society Review16: 291–309., , and . [Page 442]1972. “State Court Evasion of United States Supreme Court Mandates during the Last Decade of the Warren Court.” Valparaiso Law Review6: 260–285.1992. “Patterns and Sources of Ticket-Splitting in Subpresidential Voting.” American Political Science Review86: 916–928., , , and .1969. The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.Becker, TheodoreL., and MalcolmM.Feeley, eds. 1973. The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions.2d ed.New York: Oxford University Press.1989. Women in Rural Areas Face Many Barriers to Abortions. New York Times, July 11, sec A..1981. Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom. New York: Sage Books., and .1969. Congress v. the Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1977. Government by Judiciary. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1983. “An Introduction to Sample Selection Bias in Sociological Data.” American Sociological Review48: 386–398.1989. The Abortion Rights Movement Has Its Day. New York Times, October 15, sec. 4.1991. Groups Backing Abortion Rights Ask Court to Act. New York Times, November 8, sec. A.1979. “The U.S. Circuit Judge Nominating Commission: The Candidates' Perspective.” Judicature62: 466–482..1984. An Introduction to Political Science Methods. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall., and .1989a. The Interest Group Society. Boston: Little, Brown.1989b. Subgovernments, Issue Networks, and Political Conflict. In Remaking American Politics, edited by RichardHarris and SidneyMilkis. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.1985. Multiple Regression in Practice. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications., and .1955. “The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision.” Harvard Law Review69: 1–65..1962. The Least Dangerous Branch. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill..1970. The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress. New York: Harper and Row..1975. The Morality of Consent. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press..1984. The Judiciary and Responsible Government, 1910–1921. New York: Macmillan., and [Page 443]1989. Neighbors in West Use Small Claims Court to Combat Drugs. New York Times, October 17, sec. A..1985. “The Choice of Remedy for Breach of Contract.” Journal of Legal Studies14: 299–319..1960. The People and the CourtNew York: Macmillan..1969. Structure and Relationship in Constitutional Law. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press..1971. Abortion and Public Opinion: The 1960–1970 Decade. Science, February 12..1977a. The Abortion Decisions: Judicial Review and Public Opinion. In Abortion: New Directions for Policy Studies, edited by EdwardManier, WilliamLiu, and DavidSolomon. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press..1977b. “The Supreme Court's Abortion Decisions and Public Opinion in the United States.” Population and Development Review3: 45–62..1964. Criminal Justice. New York: Triangle Books.Blumstein, Alfred, JacquelineCohen, SusanE.Martin, and MichaelH.Tonry, eds. 1983. Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.1982. Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press..1982. “Implementing a Permissive Policy: Hospital Abortion Services after Roe v. Wade.” American Journal of Political Science26: 1–24., and .1990. “Washington Primary: Judicial Politics.” Comparative State Politics11: 45–48..Book of the States, 1992–93 Edition. 1992. Lexington, Ky.: Council of State Governments.1992. The Untold Story. U.S. News and World Report, October 12., , and .1971. “Neutral Principle and Some First Amendment Problems.” Indiana Law Journal47: 1–35..1990. The Temperature of America. New York: Basic Books..1983. Despite Setbacks, Reagan's Assault on Legal Services Corp. Bears Fruit. National Journal, March 12..1983. The Etiology of Claims: Sketches for a Theoretical Mapping of the Claim-Definition Process. In Empirical Theories about Courts, edited by KeithO.Boyum and LynnMather. New York: Longman.1993. The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press..1977. “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights.” Harvard Law Review90: 489–504..1979. “The New Certiorari Game.” Journal of Politics41: 649–655.. [Page 444]1995. Stare Indecisis: The Alteration of Precedent on the Supreme Court, 1946–1992. New York: Cambridge University Press., and .1987. The Cult of the Court. Philadelphia: Temple University Press..1990. “The Conservatism of Antonin Scalia.” Political Science Quarterly105: 1–29..1993. The Real Anita Hill. New York: Free Press..1985. Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial. New York: Pantheon Books..1973. States and Doctors Wary on Eased Abortion Ruling. New York Times, February 16, sec. A.1989. The Battle for Justice: How the Bork Nomination Shook America. New York: W. W. Norton..Brownson, Ann, ed. 1993. 1993 Judicial Staff Directory. Mt. Vernon, Va.: Staff Directories.1984. With or Without Supreme Court Changes, Reagan Will Reshape the Federal Bench. National Journal, December 8..1983. Abortion Ruling: 10 Years of Bitter Conflict. New York Times, January 15, sec. A..1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1991. “The Narrative Construction of Reality.” Critical Inquiry18: 1–21..1983. Public Policy in the Eighties. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole., , and .1987. Duty and the Law: Judge John J. Parker and the Constitution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press..1992. The Constitution in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.1974. “But Who Should I Vote for for County Coroner?” Journal of Politics36: 778–784., and .1979. “The General Practice Lawyer and the Client: Towards a Radical Conception.” International Journal of the Sociology of Law7: 331–354..1977. “Judicial Incentives: Some Evidence from Urban Trial Courts.” Justitia4: 1–28.1991a. Courts and Public Opinion. In The American Courts, edited by JohnB.Gates and CharlesA.Johnson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.1991b. “The Supreme Court and Democratic Accountability.” American Political Science Review85: 984–988.1993. “Campaigning for the Supreme Court: The Dynamics of Public Opinion on the Thomas Nomination.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., and .1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review82: 1109–1127., and . [Page 445]1990. “The Discuss List: Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting.” Law and Society Review24: 807–836., and .1994. Lobbying for Justice: Organized Interests and the Bork Nomination in the United States Senate. Ohio State University., and .1853. Disquisition on Government. New York: D. Appleton.1990. “Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model.” American Political Science Review84: 525–534., , and .1982a. A Framework for the Analysis of Judicial Activism. In Supreme Court Activism and Restraint, edited by StephenC.Halpern and CharlesM.Lamb. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.1982b. “Studying the Impact of Judicial Decisions: A Period of Stagnation and Prospects for the Future.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver, Colo.1991. Courts and Policy: Compliance, Implementation, and Impact. In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, edited by JohnB.Gates and CharlesA.Johnson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.1981. “Patterns of Adoption of Tort Law Innovations: An Application of Diffusion Theory to Judicial Doctrines.” American Political Science Review75: 975–987., and .1971. “Compliance with Gault in Rural America: The Case of Kentucky.” Journal of Family Law10: 300–326., and .1987. The Tenth Justice. New York: Vintage Books..1921. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press..1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications., and .1983. Policymaking and Politics in the Federal District Courts. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press., and .1993. Judicial Process in America., and .2d ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.1986. Time, Narrative, and History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press..1974. The Limits of Order. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.1985. Contemporary Constitutional Lawmaking: The Supreme Court and the Art of Politics. New York: Pergamon.1973. “The Invocation of Legal Norms: An Empirical Investigation of Durkheim and Weber.” American Sociological Review38: 340–354., and .1976. The Workload of the Supreme Court. Chicago: American Bar Federation., and . [Page 446]1972. The Politics of Civil Liberties. New York: Harper and Row.1976. “The Supreme Court and National Policy-Making.” American Political Science Review70: 50–63.1941. Free Speech in the United States. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Champagne, Anthony, and JudithHaydel, eds. 1993. Judicial Reform in the States. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.1976. “The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation.” Harvard Law Review89: 1281–1316..1985. “An Empirical Assessment of Some Feminist Hypotheses about Rape.” International Journal of Women's Studies8: 414–423., and .1980. Judicial Review and the National Political Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1975. “Plea Bargains, Concessions, and the Courts: Analysis of a Quasi-Experiment.” Law and Society Review10: 377–401.1982. Examining Local Legal Culture—Practitioner Attitudes in Four Criminal Courts. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.1985. “Examining Local Legal Culture.” American Bar Foundation Research Journal1985: 449–518.1978. Justice Delayed: The Pace of Litigation in Urban Trial Courts. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts., , , and .1981. “Adjudication to Administration: A Statistical Analysis of Federal District Courts in the Twentieth Century.” Southern California Law Review55: 55–152..1961. “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly6: 129–166., and .1981. Affirmative Action May Fall Victim to Reagan's Regulatory Reform Drive. National Journal July 11.1988. The Effect of the Prohibition of Plea Bargaining on the Disposition of Felony Cases in Alaska Criminal Courts. Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, University of North Carolina.1992. “The Dynamics of Information Acquisition in Subpresidential Contests.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago., , , and1993. Washington Representative 1993., , and .17th ed.Washington, D.C.: Columbia Books.1983. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building., and .2d ed.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.1981. Knowing One When They See One. National Journal, June 6.1988. Labor Comes Alive. National Journal July 16.1970. “The Decision to Prosecute.” Law and Society Review4: 331–343.[Page 447]1981. Rules and Processes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., and .1982. “Blacks, Whites, and Attitudes toward Abortion.” Public Opinion Quarterly46: 510–520., and .“Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan: New Possibilities for State Aid to Nonpublic Schools.” St. Louis University Law Journal24: 406–424.Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Various years.The Constitution of the United States of America. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.1988. “Fundamentals of Jurisprudence: An Ethnography of Judicial Decision Making in Informal Courts.” North Carolina Law Review66: 467–507., and .1990. Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., and .1962. “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly26: 578–599.1973. “Sentencing Behavior of Federal Judges: Draft Cases 1972.” University of Cincinnati Law Review42: 597–633..1977. “Public Opinion and Federal Judicial Policy.” American Journal of Political Science21: 567–600..1991. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: Transition to a Republican Agenda and Values. In The Burger Court: Political and Judicial Profiles, edited by CharlesLamb and StephenHalpern. Champaign: University of Illinois Press..1981. Crime and the Elderly: The Emergence of a Policy Issue. In Reactions to Crime, edited by DanA.Lewis. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications..1993. Medical Schools, Students Shun Abortion Study. Wall Street Journal,.Midwest edition, March 12, sec. B.1988. Hard Judicial Choices: Federal District Court Judges and State and Local Officials. New York: Oxford University Press.1981. The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press..Council for Public Interest Law.1976. Balancing the Scales of Justice: Financing Public Interest Law in America. Washington, D.C.: Council for Public Interest Law.Court Statistics Project.1992. State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1990. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts in Cooperation with the Conference of State Court Administrators.Court Statistics Project. Various years. State Court Caseload Statistics. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts in Cooperation with the Conference of State Court Administrators.1993. Abortion and American Politics. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House., and . [Page 448]1979. “The Impact of Trial Courts on the Public Policy of Private Law: Medical Malpractice Jury Verdicts in California.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Portland, Ore.1986. Supplement to the Lawyer Statistical Report: The U.S. Legal Profession in 1985. Chicago: American Bar Foundation., , , and .1985. The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1970. Poll Finds Shift to Left among College Freshmen. New York Times, December 20, sec. 1..1993. The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1993. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc..1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law6: 279–295.1994. “Public Funding for Contraceptive, Sterilization, and Abortion Services, Fiscal Year 1992.” Family Planning Perspectives25: 244–251., and .1964. A Supreme Court Justice Is Appointed. New York: Random House.1989. The Influence of the Chief Justice in the Decisional Process of the Supreme Court. In American Court Systems,2d ed., edited by SheldonGoldman and AustinSarat. New York: Longman.1984. “Ladders and Bushes: The Problem of Caseloads and Studying Court Activities over Time.” American Bar Foundation Research Journal1984: 751–798..1985. “Continuity and Change in Patterns of Case Handling: A Case Study of Two Rural Counties.” Law and Society Review19: 381–420..1987. “Abortion Training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs.” Family Planning Perspectives19: 158–162., , , and .1983. Procedures and Politics in Congress. In The Abortion Dispute and the American System, edited by GilbertY.Steiner. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1968. Little Groups of Neighbors: The Selective Service System. Chicago: Markham Publishing., and .1993. “The Supreme Court in the News: Covering a Political Institution.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago..1989. Justice Rehnquist and the Constitution. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.. [Page 449]1989. Poll on Abortion Finds the Nation Is Sharply Divided. New York Times, April 26, sec. A.1979. Violence against Wives: A Case against the Patriarchy. New York: Free Press., and .1930. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday..1988. “A Matter of Time: Evidence of a Victim's Prompt Complaint in New York.” Brooklyn Law Review53: 1087–1115..1980. From Ballot to Bench: Judicial Elections and the Quest for Accountability. Austin: University of Texas Press.1984. “Voting Cues in Nonpartisan Trial Court Elections: A Multivariate Assessment.” Law and Society Review18: 395–436.1938. Mr. Dooley at His Best. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.1977. Hugo Black and the Judicial Revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster.1960. The Division of Labor in Society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press..1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1981. “The Forum of Principle.” New York University Law Review56: 469–518..1982. “Law as Interpretation.” Texas Law Review60: 527–550..1980. “Shifts in Abortion Attitudes: 1972–1978.” Journal of Marriage and the Family42: 491–499., and .1976. “Private Ordering through Negotiation: Dispute Settlement and Rulemaking.” Harvard Law Review89: 637–681.1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown., and .1988. The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts. Boston: Little, Brown., , and .1991. “Who Can Catch a Liar?” American Psychologist46: 913–920., and .1973. “The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade.” Yale Law Journal82: 920–949..1980. Democracy and Distrust. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1977. “The Micro-Politics of Trouble.” Social Problems25: 121–134., and .1970. The System of Freedom of Expression. New York: Vintage.1984. “The Oven Bird's Song: Insiders, Outsiders, and Personal Injuries in an American Community.” Law and Society Review18: 551–582.1985. Conservatives in Court. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press..1990. Interest Groups and the Courts. In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, edited by JohnB.Gates and CharlesA.Johnson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.. [Page 450]1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press., and .1991. “Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts.” American Political Science Review33: 825–841., and .1992. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press., and .1993a. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints. Supplement. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press., and .1993b. The Supreme Court of the United States: An Introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press., and .1992. Public Interest Law: An Annotated Bibliography and Research Guide. New York: Garland Publishing., , and .1994. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions, Development. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., , , and .1989. “The Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Disputes: A Neo-Institutional Perspective.” American Journal of Political Science33: 825–841., , and .1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press., and .1991a. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions.” Yale Law Journal101: 331–417.1991b. “Reneging on History? Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game.” California Law Review79: 613–684.1986. Redefining the Supreme Court's Role. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press., and .1987. Real Rape. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1983. In Winning His Battle for Rights Commission, Did Reagan Lose the War?National Journal, December 17..1971. The History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Reconstruction and Reunion 1864–1868. Part 1. New York: Macmillan..1978. Sexual Shakedown: The Sexual Harassment of Women on the Job. New York: McGraw-Hill..Farrand, Max, ed. 1966. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787.Rev. ed.4 vols. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.1978. The Effects of Heavy Caseloads. In American Court Systems: Readings in Judicial Process and Behavior, edited by SheldonGoldman and AustinSarat. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.1979. The Process Is the Punishment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.1983. Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail. New York: Basic Books.[Page 451]1976. “The Development of the Employment at Will Rule.” American Journal of Legal History20: 118–135.1989. “Support for Business in the Federal District Courts: The Impact of State Political Environment.” American Politics Quarterly17: 96–104.1992. “Strike One, Strike Two …: The History of and Prospect for Judicial Reform in Ohio.” Judicature75: 193–200., and .1981. “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming.…” Law and Society Review15: 631–654., , and .1966. The Power of the Purse. Boston: Little, Brown..1989. Congressional Influence on Administrative Agencies: A Case Study of Telecommunications Policy. In Congress Reconsidered,, and .4th ed., edited by LawrenceC.Dodd and BruceI.Oppenheimer. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.1992. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan.1988–1989. “Spite Nominations to the United States Supreme Court: Herbert C. Hoover, Owen J. Roberts, and the Politics of Presidential Vengeance in Retrospect.” Kentucky Law Journal77: 545–576.1967. Clergymen Offer Abortion Advice. New York Times, May 22, sec. A.1982. Allocating Freedom and Punishment: Pretrial Release Decisions in Detroit and Baltimore. New York: Longman.1992. The Craft of Justice: Politics and Work in Criminal Court Communities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press., , and .1987. “The Harassment of U.S. Abortion Providers.” Family Planning Perspectives19: 9–13., and .1978. “Abortion in the United States, 1976–1977.” Family Planning Perspectives10: 271–279., , and .1979a. Abortion 1976–1977: Need and Services in the United States, Each State and Metropolitan Area. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute., , and .1979b. “Abortions in the United States, 1977–1978.” Family Planning Perspectives11: 329–341., , and .Foundation for Public Affairs. 1988. Public Interest Profiles. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.1985. Religion and Politics in America. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press for American Theological Library Association..1991. Clement Haynsworth, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.[Page 452]1989. “Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion.” American Political Science Review83: 751–771., and .1991. “Public Awareness of Supreme Court Decisions.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago., and .1993. “The Salience of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta., , and .Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. 1994. U.S. Public Law103–259, 108 Stat. 694.1991. Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution—A First Hand AccountNew York: Simon and Schuster..1969. “Legal Culture and Social Development.” Law and Society Review4: 29–44.1976. “A Tale of Two Courts: Litigation in Alameda and San Benito Counties.” Law and Society Review10: 267–301., and .1969–1978. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court. New York: R. R. Bowker., and , eds.1983. “The Transformation in Senate Response to Supreme Court Nominations: From Reconstruction to the Taft Administration and Beyond.” Cardozo Law Review5: 1–95.1986. “Tribal Myths: Ideology and Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominations.” Yale Law Review95: 1283–1320.1978. The Forms and Limits of Adjudication. In American Court Systems,.1st ed., edited by SheldonGoldman and AustinSarat. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review9: 95–160..1983. “Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) about Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society.” UCLA Law Review31: 4–71..1984. “Words of Deals: Using Negotiation to Teach about Legal Process.” Journal of Legal Education34: 268–276..1979. “The Crusading Judge: Judicial Activism in Trial Courts.” Southern California Law Review52: 699–741., , and .Gallup Poll. Various years. The Gallup Poll. Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources.1981. Litigation, Judicial Deference, and Policy Change. In Governing through Courts, edited by RichardA. L.Gambitta, MarlynnL.May, and JamesC.Foster. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.1982. “Introduction: Toward a Sociology of the Class Action.” Indiana Law Journal57: 371–383.[Page 453]1979. “Women and Interest Group Politics: A Comparative Analysis of Federal Decision-Making.” Journal of Politics41: 362–392., and .1990. “Federalism and Separation of Powers on a ‘Conservative’ Court: Current and Cross-currents from Justices O'Connor and Scalia.” Tulane Law Review64: 1443–1476., and .1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review86: 323–337., and .1980. “Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan: New Possibilities for State Aid to Nonpublic Schools.” Saint Louis University Law Journal24: 406–424.1971. “Lemon and Tilton: The Bitter and the Sweet of Church-State Entanglement.” Supreme Court Review1971: 147–200.1978. “Judges' Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model.” American Political Science Review72: 911–924.1980. “Environmental Constraints on the Behavior of Judges: A Representational Model of Judicial Decision Making.” Law and Society Review14: 343–370.1980. “Mass Level Compliance with Public Policy: The Case of School Desegregation.” Journal of Politics42: 722–746., and .1983. Courts, Politics, and Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.1987. “The Recruitment of State Supreme Court Judges.” Judicature70: 228–235., and .1989. Examining Court Delay: The Pace of Litigation in 26 Urban Trial Courts, 1987. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.1990. The NAACP Comes of Age: The Defeat of Judge John J. Parker. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.1965. “Characteristics of Eisenhower and Kennedy Appointees to the Lower Federal Courts.” Western Political Quarterly18: 755–762..1966. “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961–1964.” American Political Science Review60: 374–383..1975. “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals Revisited.” American Political Science Review69: 491–506..1983. “Reagan's Judicial Appointments at Mid-Term: Shaping the Bench in His Own Image.” Judicature66: 335–347..1985. “Reaganizing the Judiciary. The First-Term Appointments.” Judicature68: 315–337..1989. Judicial Appointments and the Presidential Agenda. In The Presidency in American Politics, edited by PaulBrace, ChristineB.Harrington, and GaryKing. New York: New York University Press..1990. “Reagan's Judicial Legacy: Completing the Puzzle and Summing Up.” Judicature72: 318–330.. [Page 454]1991. “The Bush Imprint on the Judiciary: Carrying on a Tradition.” Judicature74: 294–306..1993. “Bush's Judicial Legacy: The Final Imprint.” Judicature76: 282–297..1987. “The ERA and the U.S. Supreme Court.” Research in Law and Policy Studies1: 145–61..1991. In Defense of the Text. Savage, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield..1973. “Doe and Roe.” Women's Rights Law Reporter1: 20–38., , and .1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishing..1994. Life and Death Choices: Antiabortion Faction Tries to Justify Homicide. Washington Post, August 13, sec. A..1980. “Abortion Attitudes, 1965–1980: Trends and Determinants.” Family Planning Perspectives12: 250–261., and .1986. “Coaches in the Courtroom: Recovery in Actions for Breach of Employment Contracts.” Journal of College and University Law12: 545–558..1984. “The Problems of Wrongful Termination.” California Lawyer4: 29–31.1985. Of Tents with Wheels and Houses with Oars. New York Times, May 16, sec. A..1988. Precedent for Lower Courts: Tyrant or Teacher. New York Times, January 29, sec. A..1974. “Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?” Stanford Law Review27: 703–718.1978. “Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought.” Stanford Law Review30: 843–893.1988a. The Original Understanding and the Unwritten Constitution. In Toward a More Perfect Union: Six Essays on the Constitution, edited by NeilL.York. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press.1988b. “The Uses of an Unwritten Constitution.” Chicago-Kent Law Review64: 211–238.1979. “Merit Retention Elections: What Influences the Voters?” Judicature63: 78–88., and .1983. “Patterns of Voting Behavior in Judicial Retention Elections for Supreme Court Justices in Wyoming.” Judicature67: 68–77., and .1965. Lawyers and Judges: The ABA and the Politics of Judicial Selection. New York: John Wiley and Sons.1975. “Litigation in the Federal Courts: A Comparative Perspective.” Law and Society Review9: 321–346., and .1972. “Haynsworth and Parker: History Does Live Again.” South Carolina Law Review23: 345–375., and . [Page 455]1982. “Dimensions of Institutional Participation: Who Uses the Courts and How?” Journal of Politics44: 87–111., , , , , and .1981. “Women as Policymakers: The Case of Trial Judges.” American Journal of Political Science25: 308–322., , and .1964. “The Subtle Vices of the ‘Passive Virtues’—A Comment on Principle and Expediency in Constitutional Law.” Columbia Law Review64: 1–25..1981. The Culture of Public Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1966. “Lobbying the Supreme Court: An Appraisal of Political Science Folklore.” Fordham Law Review35: 15–50..1979. The Politics of Local Justice. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.1980. “The Children of the Cabins: The Lower Federal Judiciary, Modernization, and the Political Culture.” Northwestern University Law Review75: 423–471.1987. “What Twenty Years of Judicial Retention Elections Have Told Us.” Judicature70: 340–347., and .Halpern, StephenC., and CharlesM.Lamb, eds. 1982. Supreme Court Activism and Restraint. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.1978. Social Movements and the Legal System: A Theory of Law Reform and Social Change. New York: Academic Press.1978. “Competition in Michigan's Judicial Elections: Democratic Ideals vs. Judicial Realities.” Wayne Law Review24: 1267–1306.1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1980. “State Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions: Abortion Rates Since Roe v. Wade.” Journal of Politics42: 372–395.1991. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, edited by DonnaHaraway. New York: Routledge..1985. Shadow Justice: The Ideology and Institutionalization of Alternatives to Court. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.1988. “Regulatory Reform: Creating Gaps and Making Markets.” Law and Policy10: 293–316.1994. Outlining a Theory of Legal Practice. In Lawyers in a Postmodern World: Translation and Transgression, edited by MaureenCain and ChristineB.Harrington. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.1993. “Rethinking Litigation Activity.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., and . [Page 456]1951. The Advice and Consent of the Senate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1970. Decision. New York: E. P. Dutton..1953. “The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic.” Harvard Law Review66: 1362–1402.1959. “The Supreme Court—Foreword: Time Chart of the Justices.” Harvard Law Review73: 84–125.1992. The Uses of Discretion. Oxford: Clarendon Press..1944. The Selection and Tenure of Judges. Newark, N.J.: National Conference of Judicial Councils..1977. A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution..1982. Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar. New York: Russell Sage Foundation., and .1983. “The Supreme Court, the National Law, and the Selection of Cases for the Plenary Docket.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review44: 521–634..1985. “Case Selection in the Burger Court: A Preliminary Inquiry.” Notre Dame Law Review60: 947–1055..1987. “Review Essay: What Makes Rape a Crime?” Berkeley Women's Law Journal3: 193–229.1986. “Induced Abortion: A Worldwide Perspective.” Family Planning Perspective18: 250–254.1991. “The Accessibility of Abortion Services in the United States.” Family Planning Perspectives23: 246–252, 263.1983. “Characteristics of Abortion Patients in the United States, 1979 and 1980.” Family Planning Perspectives15: 5., and .1990. “Abortion Services in the United States, 1987 and 1988.” Family Planning Perspectives22: 102–108, 142., and . [Page 457]1994. “Abortion Services in the United States, 1991 and 1992.” Family Planning Perspectives26: 100–106, 122., and .1985. “A Portrait of American Women Who Obtain Abortions.” Family Planning Perspectives17: 90–96., , , and .1984. “Abortion Services in the United States, 1981 and 1982.” Family Planning Perspectives16: 119–127., , and .1987. “Abortion Services in the United States, 1984 and 1985.” Family Planning Perspectives19: 63–70., , and .1982. “Abortion Services in the United States, 1979 and 1980.” Family Planning Perspectives14: 5–15., , , and .1991. “Characteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1987.” Family Planning Perspectives23: 75–81., , and .1992. Trauma and Recovery. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1988. Representing God in Washington: The Role of Religious Lobbies in the American Polity. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.1975. “A Note on Plea Bargaining and Case Pressure.” Law and Society Review9: 515–528..1978. Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1979. Thinking about Plea Bargaining. In The Study of Criminal Courts: Political Perspectives, edited by PeterNardulli. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger..1979. “Mandatory Sentencing and the Abolition of Plea Bargaining: The Michigan Felony Firearm Statute.” Law and Society Review13: 393–430., and .1990. “Government Litigation and National Policymaking: From Roosevelt to Reagan.” Law and Society Review24: 477–495..1986. “The Rising Demand for Court Services: A Structural Explanation of the Caseload of U.S. District Courts.” Justice System Journal11: 303–320., and .1990. The Rationalization of Justice: Historical Change and Structural Contradictions of the Federal Justice System. Albany: State University of New York Press., and .1994a. F.D.A. Panel Takes Step toward Setting Control on Nicotine. New York Times, August 3, sec. A.1994b. Lawsuits against Tobacco Companies May Be Consolidated. New York Times, November 6, sec. 1.1990. To the Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism. Berkeley: University of California Press..1980. “House Re-Elections and Senate Defeats: The Role of the Challenger.” British Journal of Political Science10: 441–460..1974. “Information and the Vote: A Comparative Election Study.” American Politics Quarterly2: 131–158., , and .1977. “The NAACP and the Supreme Court: Walter F. White and the Defeat of John J. Parker, 1930.” Negro History Bulletin5: 753–757..Hoffman, JamesR., ed. Various years. The American Bench: Judges of the Nation. Sacramento, Calif.: Forster-Long.1992. “‘New-Style’ Judicial Campaigns and the Voters: Economic Issues and Union Members in Ohio.” Western Political Quarterly45: 921–948., and .1971. Rebirth of Feminism. New York: Quadrangle., and . [Page 458]1897. “The Path of the Law.” Harvard Law Review10: 457–478.1988. The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking. New York: St Martin's Press.Horan, DennisJ., EdwardR.Grant, and PaigeC.Cunningham, eds. 1987. Abortion and the Constitution: Reversing Roe v. Wade Through the Courts. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.1968. “On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice.” American Political Science Review62: 43–56..1981. Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press..1965. “Salmon P. Chase: Chief Justice.” Vanderbilt Law Review18: 589–614.1992. “Abortion: Public Support Grows for Roe v. Wade.…” Gallup Poll Monthly316 (January): 5–9..1985. Case of the Missing Bullets. New York Times, May 15, sec. A..1950. The Growth of American Law: The Law Makers. Boston: Little, Brown..1982. Americans United's Role in Church-State Separation. Washington Post, January 16..1990. “Organized Religion and the Supreme Court.” Journal of Church and State32: 775–94..1993. Redefining the First Freedom: The Supreme Court and the Consolidation of State Power. New Brunswick: Transaction Press..1987. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., and .1988. Law, Fact, and Narrative Coherence. Merseyside, U.K.: Deborah Charles Publications..1983. Public Opinion, Elections, and the ‘Single-Issue’ Issue. In The Abortion Dispute and the American System, edited by GilbertY.Steiner. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution., and .1965. Justice in America..1st ed.Boston: Little, Brown.1984. Justice in America..4th ed.Boston: Little, Brown.1992. “The Elusive Shadow of the Law.” Law and Society Review26: 565–590..1977. “Citizen Participation in Policy-Making: The Role of the Jury.” Journal of Politics39: 73–96.1981. Abortion Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill., , and .1968. “Role Theory and the Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics30: 160–186.. [Page 459]1992. Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press..1905. Writings. Vol. 16. Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States..1990. Governor Campaigns Used up $16 Million. Columbus Dispatch, December 15, sec. B..1980. “On the Prevalence of Rape in the United States.” Signs6: 136–146..1984. Judicial Policies: Implementation and ImpactWashington D.C.: CQ Press., and .1981. “Lawyers' Choice: A Theoretical Appraisal of Litigation Investment Decisions.” Law and Society Review15: 567–610.1977. Abortion Foes Gain Support as They Intensify Campaign. New York Times, October 23, sec. 1..Joint Committee on New York Drug Law Evaluation.1978. The Nation's Toughest Drug Law: Evaluating the New York Experience. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.Judges of the United States. 1983. Washington, D.C.: Judicial Conference of the United States.1977. “The Business of State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970.” Stanford Law Review30: 121–156., , , and .1990. Abe Fortas. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press..1966. The American Jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., and .1977. “Foreword: Equal Citizenships.” Harvard Law Review91: 1–68..1983. “The Supreme Court Beat: How Television Covers the Supreme Court.” Judicature67: 6–12..1979. Understanding the Rape Victim: A Synthesis of Research Findings. New York: John Wiley and Sons., and .1988. The Underlying Concerns. In Judges and Legislators: Toward Institutional Comity, edited by RobertA.Katzmann. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1991. The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development,, , and .7th ed.New York: W. W. Norton.1978. “The Supreme Court and Social Change: The Case of Abortion.” Western Political Quarterly31: 19–31., , and .1993. “Legal Discourse and Political Intolerance: The Ideology of Clear and Present Danger.” Law and Society Review27: 559–597..A Killing Silence. 1994. New York Times. May 12, sec. A.[Page 460]1973. Despite Court Ruling, Problems Persist in Gaining Abortions. New York Times, May 20, sec. 1..1976. “Criminal Justice and the Negotiated Plea.” Ethics86: 93–106..1991 “Eradicating Title VII Sexual Harassment by Recognizing an Employer's Duty to Prohibit Sexual Harassment.” Arizona Law Review33: 383–399..1975. Simple Justice. New York: Knopf..1992. The Attorney General's Lawyer: Inside the Meese Justice DepartmentNew York: Praeger.1994. On the Struggle for Judicial Supremacy. Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., and .1985. “Justice Harry A. Blackmun and Church-State Questions: A ‘Born-Again Separationist’?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, San Diego.1987. “A Court Related Context for Group Litigation: Libertarian Groups and Obscenity.” Journal of Politics49: 1061–1078.1989. “Leadership on the Supreme Court of the United States: Chief Justice Burger and the Establishment Clause.” Western Political Quarterly42: 545–568.1991. The Politics of Obscenity: Group Litigation in a Time of Legal Change. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.1992. “The Judicial Odyssey of Harry Blackmun: The Dynamics of Individual-Level Change on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.1989. Abortion Case Has Been Boon to Both Sides. Legal Times, July 3..1988. “Spatial Models of Legislative Choice.” Legislative Studies Quarterly13: 259–319..1979. Political Culture, Trial Courts, and Criminal Cases. In The Study of Criminal Courts, edited by PeterNardulli. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.1991. Let's Make a Deal: Understanding the Negotiation Process in Ordinary Litigation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.1993. “Local Legal Culture and the Control of Litigation.” Law and Society Review27: 535–557., and .1979. “Political Participation and Government Responsiveness: The Behavior of California Superior Courts.” American Political Science Review73: 1090–1099., and .Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States. Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America., and . Various years.1968. Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.[Page 461]1966. Abortion. New York: Bobbs-Merrill..1973. Abortion II: Making the Revolution. Boston: Beacon Press..1991. “Easing Access to the Courts for Incest Victims: Toward an Equitable Application of the Delayed Discovery Rule.” Yale Law Journal100: 2189–2208.1978. “Torture and Plea Bargaining.” University of Chicago Law Review46: 3–22.1993. “The Supreme Court and Television: Predicting Case Coverage.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago., and .1991. State Constitutions and Criminal Justice. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press..1990. The Poor in Court. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.1991. “Vicious Stereotypes in Polite Society.” Constitutional Commentary8: 395–407..1981. A Lawyer Looks at the Supreme Court. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press..1949. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1977. Urban Politics and the Criminal Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1973. Constitutional Law and Obscene Literature: An Investigation of Bookseller Practices. In The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions,2d ed., edited by TheodoreBecker and MalcolmFeeley. New York: Oxford University Press.1983. “Using Jury Verdict Forecasts in Criminal Defense Strategy.” Judicature66: 448–461.1992. Juries and Politics. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.1977. Urban Politics and Criminal Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1994. “The Erosion of the Employment-at-Will Doctrine: Recent Developments.” Labor Law Journal45: 79–89.1989. Views on Abortion Remain Divided. New York Times, January 22, sec. 1..1991. A Case Study of Sexual Harassment. New York Times, October 11, sec. A..1994. A Cause Worth Killing For? Debate Splits Abortion Foes. New York Times, July 30, sec. A..1964. Gideon's Trumpet. New York: Vintage..1980. Applied Regression—An Introduction. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–022. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.[Page 462]1992. Missouri Judge Voted Out for 1st Time in 50 Years. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 5, sec. C., and .1989. Abortion Clinics Face Must-Win Case. Chicago Tribune, August 6..1985. Hoover, Blacks, and Lily-Whites: A Study of Southern Strategies. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.1990. For Want of Recognition, Chief Justice Is Ousted. New York Times, September 28, sec. B..1984. “Lay Lawyering.” University of California Los Angeles Law Review32: 1–60..1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1984. “A Lawyer Looks at Rex Lee.” Benchmark1: 1–16..1982. Equity and the Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..McGuigan, PatrickB., and JeffreyO'Connell, eds. 1987. The Judges War. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Government and Politics.1990. Ninth Justice: The Fight for Bork. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America., and .1993. The Supreme Court Bar: Legal Elites in the Washington Community. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.1983. “Private Use of a Public Forum: A Long Range View of the Dispute Processing Role of Courts.” American Political Science Review77: 991–1010.1990. The Appeal of the Civil Law. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.1981. The Politics of Presidential Appointments. New York: Free Press..1981. Legal Services Corp. Supporters Fear It May Be ‘Block Granted’ to Death. National Journal, February 28..1978. “Choosing Judges: Do the Voters Know What They're Doing?” Judicature62: 94–99., , and .1977. Econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.1988. Changing Times in Trial Courts. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.1991. “Legal Images of Battered Women: Redefining the Issue of Separation.” Michigan Law Review90: 1–94..1992. “Exit: Power and the Idea of Leaving in Love, Work, and the Confirmation Hearings.” Southern California Law Review65: 1283–1319..1990. “The Selling of Clement Haynsworth: Politics and the Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices.” Judicature72: 338–347.. [Page 463]1991. “Students versus Professors: Combatting Sexual Harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.” Connecticut Law Review23: 355.1991. Empirical Political Analysis. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman., and .1986. Hell No, He Won't Go! Dartmouth's Joe Yukica Fights for His Right to Coach Football. People, January 20..1968. The Impact of Mapp v. Ohio. In The Supreme Court as Policy-Maker: Three Studies on the Impact of Judicial Decisions, edited by D.H.Everson. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.1994. President Signs Clinic Access Law; Foes File Lawsuit. Washington Post, May 27, sec. A..1994. Jurors Acquit Dr. Kevorkian in Suicide Case. New York Times, May 3, secs. A, B..1982. Rape and the Limits of Law Reform. Boston: Auburn House., , and .1989. Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. Boston: Unwin Hyman..1990. The U.S. Supreme Court—A Bibliography. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., and .Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. Various years. Summit, N.J.: Martindale-Hubbell.1946. Brandeis: A Free Man's Life. New York: Viking Press..1956. Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law. New York: Viking Press..1990. Supremely Political: The Role of Ideology and Presidential Management in Unsuccessful Supreme Court Nominations. Albany: State University of New York Press..1994. Review of The Uses of Discretion, by KeithHawkins. Law and Politics Book Review4: 96–98.1979. Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal Case Disposition. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books..1982. “Conclusion: The Mobilizing Potential of Class Actions.” Indiana Law Journal57: 451–458..1991. Policy Making in State Trial Courts. In American Courts, edited by JohnB.Gates and CharlesA.Johnson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press..1981. “Language, Audience, and the Transformation of Disputes.” Law and Society Review15: 775–821., and .1960. U.S. Senators and Their World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press..1990. Divided We Govern. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.. [Page 464]1968. “Custodial Police Interrogation in Our Nation's Capital: The Attempt to Implement Miranda.” University of Michigan Law Review66: 1347–1422., , and .1985. Remarks before the American Bar Association. In The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Constitution. Occasional Paper 2). Washington, D.C.: Federalist Society..1990. “Revisiting the Freshman Effect Hypothesis: The First Two Terms of Justice Anthony Kennedy.” Judicature74: 6–14..1990. Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness among Working-Class Americans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..The Supreme Court of the United States Nominations. Buffalo: William S. Hein., and . Various years.Miller, Anita, ed. 1994. The Complete Transcripts of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Hearings: October 11, 12, 13, 1991. Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers.1982. Toward Increased Judicial Activism: The Political Role of the Supreme Court. Chicago: Greenwood.1981. “Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture.” Law and Society Review15: 525–566., and .1971. The Court and Local Law Enforcement. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications..1990. Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press..1979. “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce.” Yale Law Journal88: 950–997., and .1989. The Christian Right and Congress. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.1978. Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900. New York: Oxford University Press.1968. How California's Abortion Law Isn't Working. New York Times Magazine, December 29..1990. “What You Use Depends on What You Have.” American Politics Quarterly18: 3–24..1968. The Politics of Religious Conflict. New York: Pegasus.1972. The Supreme Court and Religion. New York: Free Press.1973. “The Establishment Clause and Sectarian Schools: A Final Installment?” Supreme Court Review1973: 57–97.1988. “The New Right, It's Time We Led: Conservatism's Parched Grass Roots.” Policy Review1988: 22–25..1988. “Employment-at-Will and Codes of Ethics: The Professional's Dilemma.” Valparaiso Law Review23: 33–73.. [Page 465]1970. “Choosing among 133 Candidates.” Public Opinion Quarterly34: 395–402.1988. “Law, Change, and Litigation: A Critical Examination of an Empirical Research Tradition.” Law and Society Review22: 57–101..1988. Fortas: The Rise and Ruin of a Supreme Court Justice. New York: William Morrow..1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1978. The Art of Constitutional Interpretation. In Essays on the Constitution of the United States, edited by M.JuddHarmon. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press.1980. “An Ordering of Constitutional Values.” Southern California Law Review53: 703–760.1990. Reagan's Judicial Strategy. In Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency, edited by LarryBerman. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.1974. “Voting for a Political Candidate under Conditions of Minimal Information.” Journal of Consumer Research1: 36–43., , and .1988. The Tenor of Justice: Felony Courts and the Guilty Plea Process. Champaign: University of Illinois Press., , and .1984. Making an Issue of Child Abuse: Political Agenda Setting for Social Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1988. “Lawyers and the Structure of Influence in Washington.” Law and Society Review22: 235–300., , , and .1974. Criminal Justice in Middle America. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.1981. Managing the Pace of Justice: An Evaluation of LEAA's Delay Reduction Program. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office., , , and .1990. “The Threshold of Public Attention.” Public Opinion Quarterly54: 159–176..1987. The Case of the Copperhead Conspirator. In Quarrels That Have Shaped the Constitution, edited by JohnA.Garraty. New York: Harper and Row..1967. “Press Coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Western Political Quarterly17: 15–36.1992. “Whose Court Is It Anyhow? O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter Position Reflects Abortion Views of Most Americans.” Gallup Poll Monthly322 (July): 51–53., and .1977. Plea Bargaining Reform in Two Cities. Justice System Journal3: 6–21., and . [Page 466]1973. Raw Judicial Power. National Review, March 2.1986. He Fought the System … and Won. Los Angeles Times, March 30, sec. III..1988. The Reagan Judges: His Most Enduring Legacy? In The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance, edited by CharlesO.Jones. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.1989. “Federalism As a Metaphor in the Constitutional Politics of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review49: 411–419.1993. Storm Center.3d ed.New York: W. W. Norton.1983. The Role of Interest Groups in Supreme Court Policy Formation. In Public Policy Formation, edited by RobertEyestone. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press., and .1985. “Bridging the Gap between Congress and the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and the Erosion of the American Rules Governing Awards of Attorneys Fees.” Western Political Quarterly38: 238–249., and .1989. Public Interest Law Groups. New York: Greenwood Press., and .1984. Clients and Lawyers: Securing the Rights of Disabled Persons. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.1986. Game Theory and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1992. A Political Theory Primer. New York: Routledge.1976. “Standing to Sue: Interest Group Conflict in the Federal Courts.” American Political Science Review70: 723–741..1992. “Courting Constituents? An Analysis of the Senate Confirmation Vote on Justice Clarence Thomas.” American Political Science Review86: 997–1006., , , and .1991. The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda: From the New Deal to the Reagan Administration. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press..1990. The Vinson Court Era: The Supreme Court's Conference Votes. New York: AMS Press..Papke, David, ed. 1992. Narrative and Legal Discourse: A Reader in Storytelling and the Law. Liverpool, U.K.: Deborah Charles Publications.1982. “Class Action Suits and Social Change: The Organization and Impact of the Hill-Burton Cases.” Indiana Law Journal57: 385–423., and .1961. Fifty-Eight Lonely Men: Southern Federal Judges and School Desegregation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.[Page 467]1982. The Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press..1988. Morality, Politics, and Law: A Bicentennial Essay. New York: Oxford University Press..1989. The People Rising: The Campaign against the Bork Nomination. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press., and .1987. States Assess Surrogate Motherhood. New York Times, December 13, sec. 1..1975. God, Caesar, and the Constitution. Boston: Beacon Press..1984. Religion, State, and the Burger Court. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books..1992. Capitol Games. New York: Hyperion., and .1980. The Shooting War over ‘Choice’ or ‘Life’ Is Beginning Again. Chicago Tribune, April 20, sec. 12..1981. Some Friends in High Places May Save Legal Aid Funding Program from Extinction. National Journal, June 6.1966. “Ethnic and Group Voting in Nonpartisan Municipal Elections.” Public Opinion Quarterly30: 79–97..1985. Congressional Committees in the Policy Process. In Congress Reconsidered,3d ed., edited by LawrenceC.Dodd and BruceI.Oppenheimer. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.1993. “Who Gets the News? Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Implications for Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly57: 133–164., and .1948. The Roosevelt Court. New York: Macmillan..1954. Civil Liberties and the Vinson Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1961. Congress versus the Supreme Court. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press..1969. The Development of Judicial Research. In Frontiers of Judicial Research, edited by JoelB.Grossman and JosephTanenhaus. New York: John Wiley and Sons..“Protecting At Will Employees against Wrongful Discharge: The Duty to Terminate Only in Good Faith.” 1980. Harvard Law Review93: 1816–1844.1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1971. The Role of Amicus Curiae in the United States Supreme Court. Ph.D. diss., State University of New York at Buffalo..1951. Charles Evans Hughes. New York: Columbia University Press.1993. Institutional and Historical Perspectives on Tobacco Tort Liability. In Smoking Policy: Law, Politics, and Culture, edited by RobertL.Rabin and StephenD.Sugarman. New York: Oxford University Press.1988. “Micromanaging the Administrative Agencies.” Public Interest100: 116–130.. [Page 468]1990. A Social-Cognitive Model of Candidate Appraisal. In Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology, principal authors PaulM.Sniderman, RichardA.Brody, and PhilipE.Tetlock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., , , and .1960. “Congressional Power over the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review109: 157–202..1990. A Personalized History of the Supreme Court from Roosevelt to Bush. Regents' Lecture, University of California, San Diego, Calif., February 13 and 15.1992. “The American Voter in a Nonpartisan, Urban Election.” American Politics Quarterly20: 247–260..1994. “The American Voter in a Local, Judicial Election.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago., and .1982. Public Papers of the PresidentWashington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office..1983. Public Papers of the PresidentWashington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office..1984. Public Papers of the PresidentWashington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office..1985. Public Papers of the PresidentWashington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office..1994. Congress and the Courts: A Legislative History. Buffalo: William S. Hein.1978. Congress and the Courts: A Legislative History. Buffalo: William. S. Hein., and .1994. “The Effect of Political Expertise on Support for the United States Supreme Court, 1980–1992.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York., and .1987. The Supreme Court—How It Was, How It Is. New York: William Morrow.1985. Religion in American Public Life. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution..1986. “LawPoll: How Lawyers Vote on Tough Ethical Dilemmas.” American Bar Association Journal72: 42..Rhode Island Abortion Law Is Declared Unconstitutional. 1973. New York Times, May 17, sec. A.1970. The Politics of Federal Courts: Lower Courts in the United States. Boston: Little, Brown., and . [Page 469]1972. Law and Social Change: Civil Rights Laws and Their Consequences. New York: McGraw-Hill., and .1994. “The Positive Political Dimensions of Regulatory Reform.” Washington University Law Quarterly72: 1–150.1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman., and .1994. Florida Prepares New Basis to Sue Tobacco Industry for People on Medicaid. New York Times, May 27, secs. A, B..1986a. A Preliminary Examination of Available Civil and Criminal Trend Data in State Trial Courts for 1978, 1981, and 1984. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.1986b. “The Propensity to Litigate in State Trial Courts, 1981–1984, 1984–1985” Justice System Journal11: 262–281.1993. The Leader of the Opposition. New Republic, January 18..1974. “Health Professionals' Attitudes toward Abortion.” Public Opinion Quarterly38: 159–173., , , and .1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1974. Lawyer and Client: Who's in Charge?New York: Russell Sage Foundation.1971. Survey Finds 50% Back Liberalization of Abortion Policy. New York Times, October 28, sec. A..1975. “Is Support for Abortion Political Suicide?” Family Planning Perspectives7: 13–22.1970. Settled Out of Court: The Social Process of Insurance Claims Adjustments. Chicago: Aldine..1990. “Participation by the Public in the Federal Judicial Selection Process.” Vanderbilt Law Review43: 1–84.1994. A Muted Fury: Populists, Progressives, and Labor Unions Confront the Courts, 1890–1937. Princeton: Princeton University Press.1978. “Prosecutor Perceptions of Crime Seriousness.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology69: 232–242.1979. “Alaska's Ban on Plea Bargaining.” Law and Society Review13: 367–383., and .1982. Abortion, Politics, and the Courts. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.1984. Sexual Exploitation: Rape, Child Sexual Abuse, and Workplace Harassment. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.1983. “The Prevalence of Rape in the United States Revisited.” Signs8: 688–695., and . [Page 470]1977. House Bars Use of U.S. Funds in Abortion Cases. Washington Post, June 18, sec. A..1980. American Trial Judges: Their Work Styles and Performance. New York: Free Press., , , and .1981. “Foreword: Constitutional Limitations on Congress' Authority to Regulate the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.” Harvard Law Review95: 17–89..1990. The Paradox of Interest Groups in Washington—More Groups, Less Clout. In The New American Political System, edited by AnthonyKing. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.1992. The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press..1977. “The Law of the Oppressed: The Construction and Reproduction of Legality in Pasargada.” Law and Society Review12: 5–105..1977. “Judging in Trial Courts: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Politics39: 368–398..1986. “Law and Strategy in the Divorce Lawyer's Office.” Law and Society Review20: 93–134., and .1975. “Courts and Conflict Resolution: Problems in the Mobilization of Adjudication.” American Political Science Review69: 1200–1217., and .1986. The Narrative as a Root Metaphor for Psychology. In Narrative Psychology, edited by TheodoreSarbin. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press..1989. Pooled Time Series Analysis. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.1960. The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1974. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.1987. “The Re-Vision of Rape Law.” University of Chicago Law Review54: 1095–1116..1988. “Facing Facts in Legal Interpretation.” Representations30: 42..1983. “Through Women's Eyes: Defining Danger in the Wake of Sexual Assault.” Journal of Social Issues39: 63–80., and .1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper and Row., and .1991. Mathematical Modeling. In Empirical Political Analysis, edited by JarolB.Manheim and RichardC.Rich. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.1959. Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.1960. Constitutional Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1962. “Policy without Law: An Extension of the Certiorari Game.” Stanford Law Review14: 284–327.[Page 471]1965. The Judicial Mind. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.1971. Abortion Rap. New York: McGraw-Hill., and .1984. “Is Plea Bargaining Inevitable?” Harvard Law Review97: 1037–1107.1977. Though Legal, Abortions Are Not Always Available. New York Times, January 2, sec. 4..1979. “The Case for Specific Performance.” Yale Law Journal89: 271–306..1983. Super Chief. New York: New York University Press..1990. The Ascent of Pragmatism. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley..1994. A History of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press..1993. Tobacco Liability in the Courts. In Smoking Policy: Law, Politics, and Culture, edited by RobertL.Rabin and StephenD.Sugarman. New York: Oxford University Press.1988. Packing the Courts: The Conservative Campaign to Re-Write the Constitution. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons..1971. The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press..1984. “Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases 1962–1981.” American Political Science Review78: 891–900.1985. “Measuring Change on the Supreme Court: Examining Alternative Models.” American Journal of Political Science29: 461–479.1986. “Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers: An Individual Level Analysis of Search and Seizure Cases.” Journal of Politics48: 938–955.1987. “Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices: Partisan and Institutional Politics.” Journal of Politics49: 998–1015.1991. Courts, Executives, and Legislatures. In The American Courts, edited by JohnB.Gates and CharlesA.Johnson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review83: 557–565., and .1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., and .1994. “Preferences vs. Precedents: An Empirical Test of the Legal Model.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York., and .1992. “A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents, and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations.” American Journal of Political Science36: 96–121., , and .Ideological Values and the Votes of the Justices Revisited. Journal of Politics., , , and . Forthcoming.1964. The Measurement of Delinquency. New York: John Wiley and Sons., and . [Page 472]1988. Bifurcated Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1991. Tell Me a Story. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons..1964. Law and Politics in the Supreme Court. New York: Free Press..1970. Decentralized Decision-Making in the Law of Torts. In Political Decision-Making, edited by S.SidneyUlmer. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold..1972. “From Public Law to Public Policy, or the ‘Public’ in ‘Public Law.’” PS5: 410–418..1981. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..1983. Fathers and Sons: The Court, the Commentators, and the Search for Values. In The Burger Court: The Counter-Revolution That Wasn't, edited by VincentBlasi. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press..1988. Who Guards the Guardians?Athens: University of Georgia Press..1990. “Interest Groups and Supreme Court Appointments.” Northwestern University Law Review84: 935–961..1981. “Media Coverage of the Courts: Improving but Still Not Adequate.” Judicature65: 18–24..1983. “Knowledge and Judicial Voting: The Oregon and Washington Experience.” Judicature67: 234–245., and1987. “The Founders' Unwritten Constitution.” University of Chicago Law Review54: 1127–1177..1989. “Women's Virtue.” Tulane Law Review63: 1591–1598..1988. “Dialects and Dominance: A Study of Rhetorical Fields in the Law of Confessions” University of Pennsylvania Law Review136: 729–849..1972. A Question of Judgment: The Fortas Case and the Struggle for the Supreme Court. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill..1989. Abortion-Issue Foes, Preaching to the Converted in No Uncertain Terms, Step Up Funding Pleas. Wall Street Journal December 26, sec. A..1985. The Civil Justice Process. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press..1989. “Dispute Processing in Law and Legal Scholarship: From Institutional Critique to the Reconstruction of the Juridical Subject.” Denver University Law Review66: 437–498., and .1987. “The Supreme Court and the New Politics of Judicial Power.” Political Science Quarterly102: 371–388., and .1985. Yukica Gets Job Back. Boston Globe, December 21..1979. “The Changing Role of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Judicial Selection.” Judicature62: 502–510.1991. “Television News and the Supreme Court: ‘Game Day’ Coverage of the Bakke Case.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.[Page 473]1992. “Television News and the Supreme Court.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago., and .1994. “Television News and the Supreme Court: Correlates of Decisional Change.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York., , and .1978. “Limits on Perception of Cognitive Processes: A Reply to Nisbett and Wilson.” Psychological Review85: 355–362., and .1988. The Power Game: How Washington Works. New York: Random House..1985. Liberalism and American Constitutional Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1988. “Political Jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law.” American Political Science Review82: 89–108..1992. Anita Hill's Legacy. Time, October 19..1991. No Order in the Court. Akron Beacon Journal, November 7, sec. A..1990. Information and Electoral Choice. In Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology, principal authors PaulM.Sniderman, RichardA.Brody, and PhilipE.Tetlock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., , and .1975. “The Stability of Support for the Political System: The Impact of Watergate.” American Politics Quarterly34: 437–457., , , , and .1984. “The Politics of Appointment and the Federal Courts' Role in Regulating America: U.S. Courts of Appeals Judgeships from T.R. to F.D.R.” American Bar Foundation Research Journal1984: 284–343.1982. “Consensual and Nonconsensual Decisions in Unanimous Opinions of the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science26: 225–239.1987. “The Impact of the Supreme Court on Trends in Economic Policy Making in the United States Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Politics49: 830–841.1991. The Circuit Courts of Appeals. In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, edited by JohnGates and CharlesA.Johnson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.[Page 474]1990. “The Impact of Party and Region on Voting Decision in the United States Courts of Appeals, 1955–1986.” Western Political Quarterly43: 317–334., and .1989. “Policy Change on the U.S. Courts of Appeals: Exploring the Contribution of the Legal and Democratic Subcultures.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association., and .1990. “Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals.” Western Political Quarterly43: 297–316., and .1992. “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science36: 235–258., and .1984. “The Impact of the Supreme Court on Outcomes in the U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association., , and .1994. “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Theory of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions.” American Journal of Political Science38: 673–696., , and .1976. The Wall of Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.1963. Warren Court Attitudes toward Business. In Judicial Decision Making, edited by GlendonSchubert. New York: Free Press.1971. “The Analysis and Interpretation of Dimensionality: The Case of Civil Liberties Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science15: 415–441., and .1977. Constructing Social Problems. New York: Aldine DeGruyter., and .1992. “Congressional Control of Judicial Independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor-Relations Decisions, 1949–1988.” RAND Journal of Economics23: 463–492., and .1988. “The Effect of Partisan Information on Voters in Nonpartisan Elections.” Journal of Politics50: 169–179., and . .1992. Vital Statistics on American Politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press., and .1970. “Haynsworth v. the U.S. Senate (1969).” Fortune81:90–94, 155–161.1991. “Rape on College Campuses: Reform through Title X.” Journal of College and University Law18: 39–71..Steiner, GilbertY., ed. 1983. The Abortion Dispute and the American System. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.1975. “The Reformation of American Administrative Law.” Harvard Law Review88: 1669–1813..1982. “Trial Court Response to Supreme Court Policy Changes: Three Case Studies.” Law and Policy Quarterly4: 215–234., and .1985. “Regression in Space and Time: A Statistical Essay.” American Journal of Political Science29: 914–947..1991. Public Opinion in America. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.. [Page 475]1988. Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.1992. “Adolescent Knowledge and Attitudes about Abortion.” Family Planning Perspectives24: 52–57., and .1950. Measurement and Prediction. New York: John Wiley and Sons., , , , , and .1992. Major Lawsuit on Smoking Is Dropped. New York Times, November 6, sec. B..1988. American Judicial Politics. San Diego, Calif.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.1977. “Legal Abortion in the United States, 1975–1976.” Family Planning Perspectives9: 116., , and .1993. The Partial Constitution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..1963. Stephen J. Field: Craftsman of the Law. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books..1991. Election Statistics for 1989–1990. Columbus: Office of the Ohio Secretary of State..1993. Ohio Election Statistics for 1991–1992. Columbus: Office of the Ohio Secretary of State..1982. “Sexual Harassment at Work: Three Explanatory Models.” Journal of Social Issues38: 33–54., , and .1977. Judicial Impact and State Supreme Courts. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books..1988. State Supreme Courts in State and Nation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press., and .1981. The Politics of Abortion. New York: Praeger., and .1981. “Personal Attribute Models of Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978.” American Political Science Review75: 355–367..1991. “Time Binding and Theory Building in Personal Attribute Models of Supreme Court Voting Behavior, 1916–88.” American Journal of Political Science35: 460–480., and .1901. John Marshall. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin..1994. U.S. Marshals Dispatched to Guard Abortion Clinics. Washington Post, August 2, sec. A..1993. “Comment: Supreme Court Denials of Certiorari in Conflicts Cases: Percolation or Procrastination?” University of Pittsburgh Law Review54: 861–891.. [Page 476]1988. “Current Trends in Employment Dismissal Law: The Plaintiff's Perspective.” Nebraska Law Review67: 178–192.1965. Justice on Trial: The Case of Louis D. Brandeis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1977. House Bars Medicaid Abortions and Funds for Enforcing Quotas. New York Times, June 18, sec. A..1990. Judge Not: Memoirs of a Judicial Nominee. National Review, August 20.1987. Contracts. In Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System, edited by RobertJ.Janosik. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.1993. Clinton Orders Reversal of Abortion Restrictions Left by Reagan and Bush. New York Times, January 23, sec. A..1991. “When Will We Be Believed? Rape Myths and the Idea of a Fair Trial in Rape Prosecutions.” University of California at Davis Law Review24: 1013–1071..1978. The Constitutional Protection of Individual Rights. Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press..1985. God Save This Honorable Court. New York: Random House..Twentieth Century Fund. 1988. Judicial Roulette: The Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Appointment of Federal Judges. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.1942. Lawyers and the Constitution—How Laissez Faire Came to the Supreme Court. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.1960. “Supreme Court Behavior and Civil Rights.” Western Political Quarterly13: 288–311..1972. “The Decision to Grant Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision ‘On the Merits.’” Polity4: 429–447..1978. “Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog Model.” American Political Science Review72: 902–910..1984. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Variable.” American Political Science Review78: 901–911..1986. The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press..United States. Bicentennial Committee of the Judicial Conference. 1983. Judges of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Judicial Conference of the United States.United States. Bureau of the Census.1991. Voting and Registration in the Election of November 1990. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, no. 453. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.United States. Bureau of the Census. Various years. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.[Page 477]United States. Congress. Senate.1916. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings on the Nomination of Louis D. Brandeis to Be an Associate Justice of the United States before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 65th Cong., 1st sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1930. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Confirmation of the Honorable John J. Parker to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 71st Cong., 2d sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1939. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Felix Frankfurter to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 76th Cong., 1st sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1958. Committee on the Judiciary. Legislative History of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals and the Judges Who Served during the Period from 1801 through March 1958. 85th Cong., 2d sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1968. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Abe Fortas, of Tennessee, to Be Chief Justice of the United States and the Nomination of Homer Thornberry, of Texas, to Be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 90th Cong., 2d sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1969. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., of South Carolina, to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 91st Cong., 1st sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1970a. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of George Harrold Carswell, of Florida, to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 91st Cong., 2d sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1970b. Congressional Record. Daily ed. 91st Cong., 2d sess. April 23. S3746.United States. Congress. Senate.1970c. Congressional Record. Daily ed. 91st Cong., 2d sess. February 24. S3501.United States. Congress. Senate.1971. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of William H. Rehnquist, of Arizona, and Lewis F. Powell, Jr., of Virginia, to Be Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. 92d Cong., 1st sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1974. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. Vol. 2. 93d Cong., 2d sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1976. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. Vol. 4. 94th Cong., 1st sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1979. Committee on the Judiciary. Selection and Confirmation of Federal Judges, Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. 96th Cong., 1st sess.United States. Congress. Senate.1991. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas, to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 102d Cong., 2d sess.United States. Merit System Board.1988. Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies. Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: An Update. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.[Page 478]The United States Courts: Their Jurisdiction and Work1989. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the United States Courts.1988. A March of Liberty. New York: Knopf.1978. Setting the Facts: Discretion and Negotiation in Criminal Court. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.1973. “A Critical Guide to Ex Parte McCardle.” Arizona Law Review15: 229–269.1979. Treating Fear and Anxiety in Rape Victims: Implications for the Criminal Justice System. In Perspectives on Victimology, edited by WilliamH.Parsonage. New York: Sage Books., , and .1989. Fluctuating Fortunes. New York: Basic Books..1959. Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.1972. Constitutional Change. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.1994. “The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago..1985. “The Criminal Justice System's Response to Battering: Understanding the Problem, Forging the Solutions.” Washington University Law Review60: 267–329..1983. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.” American Political Science Review77: 390–406.1979. The Battered Woman. New York: Harper and Row..1990. In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU. New York: Oxford University Press..1993. The Supreme Court of the United States: An Introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press., and .1974. “The Public Ordering of Private Relations: Part One, Initiating Civil Cases in Urban Trial Courts.” Law and Society Review8: 429–440..1975. “The Public Ordering of Private Relations: Part Two, Winning Civil Court Cases.” Law and Society Review9: 293–306..Want's Federal-State Court Directory. Various years. Washington, D.C.: Want Publishing.1926. The Supreme Court in United States History. Boston: Little, Brown..1939. A History of the American Bar. New York: Howard Fertig..1970. The Impact of the United States Supreme Court: Some Perspectives. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.1972. “The Senate and Supreme Court Nominations.” Duke Law Journal1971: 557–591., and .1963. “The Defeat of Judge Parker: A Study in Pressure Groups and Politics.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review50: 213–234.[Page 479]1968. “Survey Research on Judicial Decisions: The Prayer and Bible Reading Cases.” Western Political Quarterly21: 189–205.1959. “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review73: 1–35..1975. “Legal Abortions in the United States Since the 1973 Supreme Court Decisions.” Family Planning Perspectives7: 23–31., , , and .1978. “Evaluating Theories of Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science22: 554–577..1986. “The Partisan Consequences of Nonpartisan Elections and the Changing Nature of Urban Politics.” American Journal of Political Science30: 128–139., and .1966. “The Concept of Judicial Policy-Making: A Critique.” Journal of Public Law15: 286–310., and .1992. “The Dynamics of Jail Reform Litigation: A Comparative Analysis of Litigation in California Counties.” Law and Society Review26: 591–625.1951. “The Supreme Court, the Populist Movement, and the Campaign of 1896.” Journal of Politics15: 3–41..1989. Creating the Federal Judicial System, Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center., and .1987. “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970.” Law and Society Review21: 403–445., , , and .1988. The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815–35. Vols. 3 and 4 of History of the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Macmillan..1961. The Making of the President 1960. New York: Pocket Books.Who's Who in American Law. Various years. Wilmette, Ill.: Marquis.1988. “The Opinion of Anthony Kennedy: No Time for Ideology.” American Bar Association Journal74: 56–61..1981. The Second Assault: Rape and Public Attitudes. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press., and .1979. The Power of Fetal Politics. Saturday Review, June 9.1982. The Research Craft. Boston: Little, Brown., , , and .1973. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.1982. Administration Says It Merely Seeks a ‘Better Way’ to Enforce Civil Rights. National Journal, March 27..Wisconsin Contracts Group. 1989. Contracts: Law in Action. Part B of Contracts I. Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School.[Page 480]1990. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc..1976. Philosophical Investigations..3d ed.Translated by G.E. M.Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.1987. “The Defeat of the California Justices: The Campaign, the Electorate, and the Issue of Judicial Accountability.” Judicature70: 348–355., and .A Woman's Right. 1973. Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), January 27, sec. A.1989. “In Praise of Judicial Restraint: The Jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia.” Detroit College of Law Review1989: 117–162..1988. “Making Law at the Doorway: The Clerk, the Court, and the Construction of Community in a New England Town.” Law and Society Review22: 409–448..1993. Virtuous Citizens, Disruptive Subjects: Order and Complaint in a New England Court. New York: Routledge..1983. Courts, Moots, and the Disputing Process. In Empirical Theories about Courts, edited by KeithO.Boyum and LynnMather. New York: Longman., and .1986. A Deal Is a Deal. In 1986 Summer Manual. Altamonte Springs, Fla.: Special Editions Publishing..1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science36: 579–616., and .1982. “Framework for Analysis of Legal Mobilization: A Decision-Making Model.” American Bar Foundation Research Journal1982: 989–1071..1983. “Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political System.” American Political Science Review77: 690–703..
Table of Cases[Page 481]
- Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985)
- Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Services, 462 U.S. 416 (1983)
- Alamo Federation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991)
- Arrington v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1990)
- Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)
- Astroline v. Shurberg, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
- Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch (9 U.S.) 61 (1809)
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977)
- Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977)
- Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975)
- Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 396 (1968)
- Booth v. Maryland, 428 U.S. 496 (1987)
- Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988)
- Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S.186 (1986)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
- Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 113 S.Ct. 753 (1993)
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
- Brown v. Board of Education II, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
- Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917)
- Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 593 F.Supp. 1146 (D.N.J. 1984); 893 F.2d 541 (1992); 112 S.Ct. 2608 (1992)
- Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946)
- Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973)
- Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 (1980)
- Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
- Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1988)
- County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
- CPERL. See Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty.
- Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
- Daly v. Derrick, 281 Cal.Rptr. 709 (Ct.App. 1991) [Page 482]
- Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 U.S. 184 (1991)
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)
- Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965)
- Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
- Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
- Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
- Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
- Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986)
- Firefighters v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561 (1984)
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
- Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868 (1991)
- Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)
- Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980)
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 578 (1985)
- Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. (73 U.S.) 50 (1868)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
- Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962)
- Gollust v. Mendell, 501 U.S. 115 (1991)
- Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
- Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
- Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)
- Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680 (1989)
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
- In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978)
- In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982)
- In the Matter of Baby M, 525 A.2d 1128 (N.J.Super. Ch. 1987); 537 A.2d 1127 (N.J. 1988)
- Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
- Kaiser v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979)
- Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumett, 114 S.Ct. 2481 (1994)
- Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
- Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532 (1971)
- Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 113 S.Ct. 2141 (1993)
- Larkin v. Grendel's Den, 459 U.S. 116 (1982)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) [Page 483]
- Lee v. Weisman, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (1992)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
- Levitt v. Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472 (1973)
- Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968)
- Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
- McCardle, Ex parte, 6 Wall. (73 U.S.) 318 (1868)
- McCardle, Ex parte, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 506 (1869)
- McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
- McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961)
- Madsen v. Women's Health Center, 114 S.Ct. 2516 (1994)
- Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
- Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
- Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (1975)
- Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Massachusetts [The Fanny Hill case], 383 U.S. 413 (1966)
- Memphis Fire Dept. v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561 (1984)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1985)
- Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986)
- Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
- Milligan, Ex parte, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 2 (1866)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
- Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 475 (1867)
- Mississippi v. Stanton, 6 Wall. (6 U.S.) 50 (1868)
- Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944)
- Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983)
- Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)
- National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976)
- New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)
- Personnel Board v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1990)
- Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992)
- Red Jacket (United Mine Workers v. Red Jacket Consolidated Coal and Coke Company, 18 F.2d 839 (1927)) [Page 484]
- Reed v. Shepard, 939 F.2d 484 (1991)
- Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
- Richmond v. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
- Roemer v. Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 (1976)
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
- Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)
- Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
- School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
- Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 Howard) 393 (1857)
- Shapero v. Kentucky State Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
- Simmons v. State, 504 N.E.2d 575 (Ind. 1987)
- South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989)
- Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989)
- State v. Frost, 577 A.2d 1282 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1990)
- Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979)
- Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
- Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880)
- Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990)
- Swaggart Ministries v. California, 493 U.S. 378 (1990)
- Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
- Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986)
- Thorton v. Caldor, 472 U.S. 703 (1985)
- Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971)
- Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157 (1991)
- Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
- United States v. Darby Lumber, 312 U.S. 100 (1941)
- United Mine Workers v. Red Jacket Consolidated Coal and Coke Company, 18 F.2d 839 (1927)
- United States v. Carotene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)
- United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)
- United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971)
- United States v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979)
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464 (1982)
- Virginia v. Bobbitt, Prince William County Circuit Court (Va.) CR 33821 (1993) [Page 485]
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976)
- Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
- Walz v. Tax Commissioner of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
- West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
- Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990)
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981)
- Windsor v. Pan American Airways, 744 F.2d. 1187 (1984)
- Wirtz v. Glass Bottle Blowers Association Local 153, 389 U.S. 463 (1968)
- Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 (1991)
- Witters v. Washington, 474 U.S. 481 (1986)
- Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229 (1977)
- Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986)
- Yerger, Ex parte, 8 Wall. (75 U.S.) 85 (1869)
- Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976)
- Yukica v. Leland, Grafton County Superior Court (N.H.) No. 85-E-191 (1985)
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985)
- Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 113 S.Ct. 2462 (1993)
- Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306 (1952)