This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Benesh, S. C. Articles by Spaeth, H. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

Saul Brenner

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Harold J. Spaeth

Michigan State University

Given that the Supreme Court usually reverses the decision of the court below, why would justices who agree with that decision vote to hear the case? In other words, why would affirmminded justices vote to grant cert? Scholars refer to such behavior as the outcome prediction strategy. We examine its putative presence on the Vinson and Warren courts because valid and reliable data for these two courts exist. Our study has two purposes: (a) to identify and test the strategic and nonstrategic variables associated with granting cert by affirm-minded justices and (b) to offer evidence regarding whether the justices use outcome prediction. We find that although the well-known nonstrategic determinants of cert matter (e.g., salience and lower court conflict), so also do strategic considerations. We identify these variables and the strength of their impact on what fairly appears to be outcome-prediction voting by affirm-minded justices.

American Politics Research, Vol. 30, No. 3, 219-234 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X02030003001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Hall Experimental Justice: Random Judicial Assignment and the Partisan Process of Supreme Court Review American Politics Research, March 1, 2009; 37(2): 195 - 226. [Abstract] [PDF]