Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T05:49:41.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Rhetorical Sources by the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Robert J. Hume
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study considers whether U.S. Supreme Court justices use opinion content strategically, to enhance the legitimacy of case outcomes. This hypothesis is tested by examining the Court's use of rhetorical sources, which are references to esteemed figures and texts that corroborate the justices' views. The data are consistent with the position that justices use rhetorical sources strategically, citing them when the legitimacy of their actions is lowest, such as when they are overturning precedent, invalidating state or federal law, or issuing directives from a divided bench. The study also tests several other explanations for the use of these sources, such as legal considerations, the justices' ideologies, and efficiency concerns.

Type
Two Studies of the U.S. Supreme Court
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 817 - 844
Copyright
© 2006 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank David Klein and David O'Brien for their helpful comments and advice, as well as Gavin Reddick, Richard Drew, Mark Hurwitz, Bradley Canon, and Michael Solimine, who provided assistance at an earlier stage of the project. Special thanks are also extended to Paul Wahlbeck for sharing data on opinion circulation, and to Herbert Kritzer and the anonymous reviewers at the Law & Society Review.

References

References

Abraham, Henry J. (1999) Justices, Presidents, and Senators. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brown, Mark R. (1996) “Gender Discrimination in the Supreme Court's Clerkship Selection Process,” 75 Oregon Law Rev. 359–88.Google Scholar
Casey, Gregory (1974) “The Supreme Court and Myth: An Empirical Investigation,” 8 Law & Society Rev. 385–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., et al. (2005) “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Use of the Federalist Papers,” 58 Political Research Q, 329–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danelski, David J. (1966) “Values as Variables in Judicial Decision-Making: Notes toward a Theory,” 19 Vanderbilt Law Rev. 721–40.Google Scholar
Durchslag, Melvyn R. (2005) “The Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers: Is There Less Here Than Meets the Eye?” Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies Paper No. 05-34, Cleveland.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray (1964) The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Knight, Jack (1998) The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Mershon, Carol (1996) “Measuring Political Preferences,” 40 American J. of Political Science 260–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, Martin S. (1995) “History ‘Lite’ in Modern American Constitutionalism,” 95 Columbia Law Rev. 523–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, & Kinder, Donald R. (1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Charles A. (1979) “Lower Court Reactions to Supreme Court Decisions: A Quantitative Examination,” 23 American J. of Political Science 792–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Richard A. (1967) The Dynamics of Compliance: Supreme Court Decision-Making from a New Perspective. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Alfred H. (1965) “Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair,” 1965 Supreme Court Rev. 119–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kester, John G. (1995) “The Law Clerk Explosion,” 3 Long Term View 14–22.Google Scholar
King, Gary, et al. (2003) CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.1. Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, Harvard University. January 5. http://gking.harvard.edu/.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, et al. (2000) Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Charles A. (1972) The Supreme Court and the Uses of History. New York: Clarion Books.Google Scholar
Miller, Joanne M., & Krosnick, Jon A. (2000) “News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens are Guided by a Trusted Source,” 44 American J. of Political Science 301–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. (1964) Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Oakley, John Bilyeau, & Thompson, Robert S. (1980) Law Clerks and the Judicial Process. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Petrick, Michael. J. (1968) “The Supreme Court and Authority Acceptance,” 21 Western Political Q. 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, H. Jefferson (1987) “Rules for Originalists,” 73 Virginia Law Rev. 659–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman (1948) The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values, 1937–1947. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Neil M. (1997) “Clio and the Court: A Reassessment of the Supreme Court's Uses of History,” 13 J. of Law & Politics 809.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon (1958) “The Study of Judicial Decision-Making as an Aspect of Political Behavior,” 52 American Political Science Rev. 1007–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, Glendon (1959) Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1997) “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts,” 91 American Political Science Rev. 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Cover, Albert (1989) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 83 American Political Science Rev. 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (1993) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., et al. (1995) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited,” 57 J. of Politics 812–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Martin (1964) Law and Politics in the Supreme Court: New Approaches to Political Jurisprudence. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Smith, Joseph L., & Tiller, Emerson H. (2002) “The Strategy of Judging: Evidence from Administrative Law,” 31 J. of Legal Studies 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. (1964) “The Judicial Restraint of Mr. Justice Frankfurter—Myth or Reality? 8 American J. of Political Science 22–38.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. (1999) United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953–1997. Ninth ICPSR version. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of Political Science [producer], 1998. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1999.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T., & Spitzer, Matthew L. (1992) “The Economics and Politics of Administrative Law and Procedures: An Introduction,” 8 J. of Law, Economics, & Organization 8–46.Google Scholar
Tiller, Emerson H., & Spiller, Pablo T. (1999) “Strategic Instruments: Legal Structure and Political Games in Administrative Law,” 15 J. of Law, Economics, & Organization 349–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushnet, Mark (1996) “Interdisciplinary Legal Scholarship: The Case of History-in-Law,” 71 Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 909–35.Google Scholar
Walsh, David J. (1997) “On the Meaning and Pattern of Legal Citations: Evidence from State Wrongful Discharge Precedent Cases,” 31 Law & Society Rev. 337–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Walter Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992).Google Scholar
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 at 593 (1990).Google Scholar
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).Google Scholar