Skip to main content
Log in

Unanimity in the supreme court: A game-theoretic explanation of the decision in the white house tapes case

  • Articles
  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Abraham, Henry.The Judicial Process, 3d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams, Steven J.Game Theory and Politics. New York: Free Press, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——Paradoxes in Politics: An Introduction to the Nonobvious in Political Science. New York: Free Press, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, John H. “Judicial Power to Declare Legislation Unconstitutional.”Am. Bar. Assoc. Jour. 9 (November 1923), 689–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Rowland, and Novak, Robert. “Mr. Nixon's Supreme Court Strategy.”Washington Post, June 12, 1974a, A29.

  • --, and --. “A Unanimous Court against Mr. Nixon?”Washington Post, July 23, 1974b, C7.

  • Higgins, George V.The Friends of Richard Nixon. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, Nigel. “A Dynamic Theory of Games.”Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes de Recherche Operationnelle, 18 (1976).

  • ——. “Examples of a Dynamic Theory of Games.”Papers of the Peace Science Society (International) 24 (1975), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——.Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, Leon.The Right and the Power: The Prosecution of Watergate. New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, Richard.Simple Justice: The History of Brown vs. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukas, J. Anthony.Nightmare: The Underside of the Nixon Years. New York: Viking Press, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankiewicz, Frank.U. S v. Richard M. Nixon: The Final Crisis. New York: Random House, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollenhoff, Clark.Game Plan for Disaster. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, Thomas J. “The Supreme Court's Five to Four Decisions.”Am. Bar Assoc. Jour. 9 (July 1923), 417–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, John.The Fifth Year of the Nixon Watch. New York: Liverright, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillen, Herbert G.Majority Rule in the Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohde, David W., and Spaeth, Harold J.Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scigliano, Robert.The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, D. Grier, Jr. “‘The Mild Magistracy of the Law’: U.S. v. Richard Nixon.”Intellect, February 1975, 288–292.

  • Totenberg, Nina. “Behind the Marble, Beneath the Robes.”New York Times Mag., March 16, 1975, 15ff.

  • Warren, Charles.The Supreme Court in United States History, vol. I. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, Bob, and Bernstein, Carl.The Final Days. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • The End of a Presidency. New York: Bantam Books, 1975.

  • Harvard Law Review, 85–89 (November 1971–75).

  • News Sources (citations in article):National Review; Newsweek; New York Times; Time; Washington Post.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

We wish to acknowledge earlier work done on the Supreme Court case analyzed here by Robin Jo Artz in an undergraduate honors thesis at New York University under the senior author's direction, and to thank Joel B. Grossman and Nigel Howard for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. None of these people, of course, should be held responsible for the conclusions we draw from the present analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brams, S.J., Muzzio, D. Unanimity in the supreme court: A game-theoretic explanation of the decision in the white house tapes case. Public Choice 32, 67–83 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01718670

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01718670

Keywords

Navigation