Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conf lict

A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts

Datos Bibliográficos

ID6246714
AutoresMatthew E Wetstein (San Joaquin Delta College, Stockton, California), C L Ostberg (University of the Pacific, Stockton, California), Donald R Songer (University of South Carolina, Columbia), Susan W Johnson (0000-0002-1899-4379, University of North Carolina at Greensboro)
Año2009
Volumen42
Número6
Páginas763-792
Fecha de publicación2009-06-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaComparative Political Studies (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0010-4140 • E-ISSN: 1552-3829
EditorialSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0010414008329897
OpenAlexW2057735419
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas13
Referencias citadas39

According to attitudinal theorists, justices on the U.S. Supreme Court decide cases largely on political preferences that fall within one dimension of ideology. The focus of this study is to test whether a unidimensional ideological model explains the voting behavior of Canadian Supreme Court justices (1992—1997). The factor-analytic results in three areas of law, two of which have never been examined in this way in Canada, provide substantial evidence of ideological voting. Yet unlike the U.S. justices of the Rehnquist court, Canadian justices exhibit a much higher degree of ideological complexity. These findings call into question the widely held assumption of unidimensional decision making that is in vogue in the U.S. literature today, and they suggest that attitudinal theorists and comparative scholars must be cognizant that multiple dimensions of attitudinal voting might occur in high courts that are not as ideologically polarized as the U.S. Supreme Court

Consistency (knowledge bases · Dimension (graph theory · Ideology · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Supreme court · Voting · Voting behavior · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies