Saul Brenner
Biographic Data
| ID | 3976419 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Saul Brenner |
| GIVEN NAMES | Saul |
| FAMILY NAME | Brenner |
| SIGNATURE | BRENNER S |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of North Carolina at Charlotte |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 34 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 233 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 34 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1973 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2013 |
| H-INDEX | 10 |
National Science Foundation Political Science Program Awards
The political science program of the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its awards for basic research support and dissertation improvement grants for fiscal year 2012. The program funded 68 new projects and 30 doctoral dissertation improvement awards. Additional program funds were spent on continuing grant increments, which result from awards that were made in previous fiscal years, but for which funds are being disbursed on a yearly bas…
Testing Murphy's Strategic Model: Assigning the Majority Opinion to the Marginal Justice in the Conference Coalition on the U.S. Supreme Court
Murphy contended that an astute chief justice could assign the majority opinion to the “most moderate member” of the conference coalition, hoping that such an assignment “might prevent defection or even gain adherents.” We discovered that Murphy's model was partially supported with data from the Vinson, Warren, and Burger Courts. When the conference coalition was larger than minimum winning (mw), assignment of the majority opinion to the marginal…
The outcome-prediction strategy in cases denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court
Strategic Voting for Damage Control on the Supreme Court
Strategic Voting for Damage Control On the Supreme Court
Prominent scholars argue that the Supreme Court justices vote insincerely and in favor of the majority at the conference vote in order to obtain either damage control over the content of the majority opinion or to conform to the majority. Those justices who cast their vote late in the order of voting at the conference are in a better position to behave this way because they are more likely to know which side will win. Using Spaeth’s Burger Court …
Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices
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 iden…
The myth that justices strategically retire
Epstein, Segal, Spaeth, and Walker (1996) argue that "a justice of advanced age enjoying relatively good health may be more prone to retire if the incumbent president is likely to appoint an [ideologically] acceptable replacement." "Conversely, a justice of advanced age suffering health problems may attempt to postpone retirement," if an ideologically inappropriate president is in power. Thirty-three justices left the Court since 1937. Twelve of …
Opinion writing and acclimation effect
Retesting Segal and Spaeth's Stare Decisis Model
Segal and Spaeth's (1996) innovative article constitutes most ambitious attempt to date to empirically test whether stare decisis influences votes of justices on United States Supreme Court. These two scholars inspect a 40% random sample of major, nonunanimous decisions of Court in 1953 through 1995 era as well as progeny of these cases, i.e., orally argued, full cases that applied the holding of majority or plurality opinion of major case. They …
The chief justices' self assignment of majority opinions in salient cases
This study examines the extent to which the chief justices on the United States Supreme Court self-assign the majority opinion in salient cases. The period covered is 1801 until the summer of 1989. I discovered that the chief justices as a group self-assigned 35% of the majority opinions in salient cases. Some chief justices, however, self-assigned at a much higher rate than others. The range extends from Marshall (89%) to Fuller (15). Two senior…
Conformity Voting on the United States Supreme Court
This paper examines conformity voting on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1946 to 1975. We compare pairs of votes in which a justice switches from the minority at the original vote on the merits to the majority at the final vote (conformity voting) with pairs of votes in which a justice votes with the minority at both votes. Using PROBIT, we identify eight variables associated with switching. Particularly important are case salience and the size of th…
The Attitudinal Model and Fluidity Voting on the United States Supreme Court: A Theoretical Perspective
The attitudinal model, as applied to the United States Supreme Court, posits that voting by a justice on the Court is determined by his or her policy attitudes and by the location along the policy dimension of the stimulus provided by the case. Howard (1968) maintained that there was extensive fluidity in voting between the original vote on the merits and the final vote, that such fluidity deflated the ideological voting and that, as a consequenc…
Increasing the Size of Minimum Winning Original Coalitions on the Warren Court
Strategies in Certiorari Voting On the United States Supreme Court: A Reevaluation
ocial scientists are interested in how institutions set their agendas. The Supreme Court has virtual complete control over its agenda. We are interested, therefore, in how the Court exercises this control. In every fully argued and fully decided case before the United States Supreme Court the justices vote at least three times. The first vote is the vote to hear the case. It is usually a vote to grant or to deny a petition for a writ of certiorar…
Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United States Supreme Court
Do justices on the United States Supreme Court pursue strategies in their certiorari voting? We inspected seven terms from the Vinson, Warren, and Burger Courts and discovered that the justices use the error correcting, prediction, and majority strategies, particularly when the strategies are consistent with each other. Such use is not indiscriminate but usually is tempered by the presence of adverse conditions. We also investigated the error cor…
Ideological Voting on the Vinson Court: A Comparison of Original & Final Votes on the Merits
The Defection of the Marginal Justice on the Warren Court
Majority Opinion Assignments and the Maintenance of the Original Coalition on the Warren Court
Conventional wisdom about the U.S. Supreme Court states that assignment of the majority opinion to the marginal member of the minimum winning original coalition might ensure its survival. Insofar as minimum winning original coalitions on the Warren Court are concerned (which original coalitions were identified by reference to the justices' docket books), the conventional wisdom is wrong. Although the marginal justice is substantially advantaged i…
Unanimous decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court: Case stimuli and judicial attitudes
Issue Specialization in Majority Opinion Assignment On the Burger Court
To the Editor
Issue Specialization as a Variable in Opinion Assignment on the U. S. Supreme Court
Is issue specialization another variable in opinion assignment on the United States Supreme Court? I examined the civil liberties cases of the Warren Court and found that issue specialization was usual and commonplace on the Court. It was present, however, in narrow issues (such as right to counsel) and not in civil liberties in general or even in somewhat broader issues (such as criminal defendant cases). I also discovered that Chief Justice War…
Arrington & Brenner to Brams & Fishburn
Another Look at Approval Voting
Some of those who want to reform our present electoral system would replace plurality voting with approval voting. The proposed system has rarely been used in this country, and its adoption does not appear to be likely in the foreseeable future. It is then, basically, as an intellectual exercise that Professors Arrington and Brenner examine the case for approval voting in this article and find it wanting on a number of grounds, the most important…
William O. Douglas: Consistent Civil Libertarian or Parabolic Supporter
Ulmer claimed, contrary to the common wisdom, that Justice Douglas's support for civil liberties during his tenure on the Supreme Court conformed to a parabolic curve. Ulmer's conclusion is based on both unanimous and nonunanimous cases. We argue that unanimous cases should not have been included, for the votes in these cases reflect both legal and attitudinal variables. When we plot Douglas's support for civil liberties in nonunanimous cases we …
Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United States Supreme Court
Do justices on the United States Supreme Court pursue strategies in their certiorari voting? We inspected seven terms from the Vinson, Warren, and Burger Courts and discovered that the justices use the error correcting, prediction, and majority strategies, particularly when the strategies are consistent with each other. Such use is not indiscriminate but usually is tempered by the presence of adverse conditions. We also investigated the error cor…
Opinion writing and acclimation effect
Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court: A Reexamination
What is the extent and impact of fluidity on the Supreme Court? To answer this question partially the court's original vote on the merits is compared with its final vote during the period Harold Burton served as a justice (1945-1958). It is found that in 88 percent of the situations the justices voted the same way at both stages. There are no significant differences between the number of vote changes in major cases and in nonmajor ones. The fluid…
The New Certiorari Game
Majority Opinion Assignments and the Maintenance of the Original Coalition on the Warren Court
Conventional wisdom about the U.S. Supreme Court states that assignment of the majority opinion to the marginal member of the minimum winning original coalition might ensure its survival. Insofar as minimum winning original coalitions on the Warren Court are concerned (which original coalitions were identified by reference to the justices' docket books), the conventional wisdom is wrong. Although the marginal justice is substantially advantaged i…
Retesting Segal and Spaeth's Stare Decisis Model
Segal and Spaeth's (1996) innovative article constitutes most ambitious attempt to date to empirically test whether stare decisis influences votes of justices on United States Supreme Court. These two scholars inspect a 40% random sample of major, nonunanimous decisions of Court in 1953 through 1995 era as well as progeny of these cases, i.e., orally argued, full cases that applied the holding of majority or plurality opinion of major case. They …
Increasing the Size of Minimum Winning Original Coalitions on the Warren Court
Another Look at Freshman Indecisiveness on the United States Supreme Court
Fluidity on the Supreme Court: 1956-1967
Howard (1968) speaks of extensive fluidity in vote and language on the U.S. Supreme Court. In my earlier analysis, based upon Justice Harold Burton's docket books, I compared the original vote on the merits in conference with the final decision vote in the 1946 to 1956 period and found considerable stability in voting. I examined both strong fluidity (i.e., a shift from reverse to affirm or from affirm to reverse) and weak fluidity (a switch from…
The Defection of the Marginal Justice on the Warren Court
Issue Specialization as a Variable in Opinion Assignment on the U. S. Supreme Court
Is issue specialization another variable in opinion assignment on the United States Supreme Court? I examined the civil liberties cases of the Warren Court and found that issue specialization was usual and commonplace on the Court. It was present, however, in narrow issues (such as right to counsel) and not in civil liberties in general or even in somewhat broader issues (such as criminal defendant cases). I also discovered that Chief Justice War…
Conformity Voting on the United States Supreme Court
This paper examines conformity voting on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1946 to 1975. We compare pairs of votes in which a justice switches from the minority at the original vote on the merits to the majority at the final vote (conformity voting) with pairs of votes in which a justice votes with the minority at both votes. Using PROBIT, we identify eight variables associated with switching. Particularly important are case salience and the size of th…
Aggressive Grants by Affirm-Minded Justices
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 iden…
Strategies in Certiorari Voting On the United States Supreme Court: A Reevaluation
ocial scientists are interested in how institutions set their agendas. The Supreme Court has virtual complete control over its agenda. We are interested, therefore, in how the Court exercises this control. In every fully argued and fully decided case before the United States Supreme Court the justices vote at least three times. The first vote is the vote to hear the case. It is usually a vote to grant or to deny a petition for a writ of certiorar…
The myth that justices strategically retire
Epstein, Segal, Spaeth, and Walker (1996) argue that "a justice of advanced age enjoying relatively good health may be more prone to retire if the incumbent president is likely to appoint an [ideologically] acceptable replacement." "Conversely, a justice of advanced age suffering health problems may attempt to postpone retirement," if an ideologically inappropriate president is in power. Thirty-three justices left the Court since 1937. Twelve of …
The chief justices' self assignment of majority opinions in salient cases
This study examines the extent to which the chief justices on the United States Supreme Court self-assign the majority opinion in salient cases. The period covered is 1801 until the summer of 1989. I discovered that the chief justices as a group self-assigned 35% of the majority opinions in salient cases. Some chief justices, however, self-assigned at a much higher rate than others. The range extends from Marshall (89%) to Fuller (15). Two senior…
Issue Specialization in Majority Opinion Assignment On the Burger Court
Another Look at Approval Voting
Some of those who want to reform our present electoral system would replace plurality voting with approval voting. The proposed system has rarely been used in this country, and its adoption does not appear to be likely in the foreseeable future. It is then, basically, as an intellectual exercise that Professors Arrington and Brenner examine the case for approval voting in this article and find it wanting on a number of grounds, the most important…
The Attitudinal Model and Fluidity Voting on the United States Supreme Court: A Theoretical Perspective
The attitudinal model, as applied to the United States Supreme Court, posits that voting by a justice on the Court is determined by his or her policy attitudes and by the location along the policy dimension of the stimulus provided by the case. Howard (1968) maintained that there was extensive fluidity in voting between the original vote on the merits and the final vote, that such fluidity deflated the ideological voting and that, as a consequenc…
Ideological Voting on the Vinson Court: A Comparison of Original & Final Votes on the Merits
Unanimous decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court: Case stimuli and judicial attitudes
Strategic Choice and Opinion Assignment on the U. S. Supreme Court: A Reexamination
Strategic Voting for Damage Control On the Supreme Court
Prominent scholars argue that the Supreme Court justices vote insincerely and in favor of the majority at the conference vote in order to obtain either damage control over the content of the majority opinion or to conform to the majority. Those justices who cast their vote late in the order of voting at the conference are in a better position to behave this way because they are more likely to know which side will win. Using Spaeth’s Burger Court …
William O. Douglas: Consistent Civil Libertarian or Parabolic Supporter
Ulmer claimed, contrary to the common wisdom, that Justice Douglas's support for civil liberties during his tenure on the Supreme Court conformed to a parabolic curve. Ulmer's conclusion is based on both unanimous and nonunanimous cases. We argue that unanimous cases should not have been included, for the votes in these cases reflect both legal and attitudinal variables. When we plot Douglas's support for civil liberties in nonunanimous cases we …
Strategic Choice and Opinion Assignment On the U. S. Supreme Court: A Reexamination
UPREME COURT scholars are interested in opinion assignment on the Court because the justice who writes the Court's opinion has substantial control over its content. Four different researchers (Danelski, 1960; Ulmer, 1970; McLauchlan, 1972; and Rohde, 1972) examined four different data sets and found that some opinion assigners, in some kinds of cases overassigned the opinion to some categories of justices close to the dissenters (see Table 1). Th…
The Supreme Court and Social Science
Civil Disobedience and Political Violence
The United States Supreme Court and the Uses of Social Science Data
The New Certiorari Game
Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court: A Reexamination
What is the extent and impact of fluidity on the Supreme Court? To answer this question partially the court's original vote on the merits is compared with its final vote during the period Harold Burton served as a justice (1945-1958). It is found that in 88 percent of the situations the justices voted the same way at both stages. There are no significant differences between the number of vote changes in major cases and in nonmajor ones. The fluid…
Strategic Choice and Opinion Assignment On the U. S. Supreme Court: A Reexamination
UPREME COURT scholars are interested in opinion assignment on the Court because the justice who writes the Court's opinion has substantial control over its content. Four different researchers (Danelski, 1960; Ulmer, 1970; McLauchlan, 1972; and Rohde, 1972) examined four different data sets and found that some opinion assigners, in some kinds of cases overassigned the opinion to some categories of justices close to the dissenters (see Table 1). Th…
Strategic Choice and Opinion Assignment on the U. S. Supreme Court: A Reexamination
Fluidity on the Supreme Court: 1956-1967
Howard (1968) speaks of extensive fluidity in vote and language on the U.S. Supreme Court. In my earlier analysis, based upon Justice Harold Burton's docket books, I compared the original vote on the merits in conference with the final decision vote in the 1946 to 1956 period and found considerable stability in voting. I examined both strong fluidity (i.e., a shift from reverse to affirm or from affirm to reverse) and weak fluidity (a switch from…
William O. Douglas: Consistent Civil Libertarian or Parabolic Supporter
Ulmer claimed, contrary to the common wisdom, that Justice Douglas's support for civil liberties during his tenure on the Supreme Court conformed to a parabolic curve. Ulmer's conclusion is based on both unanimous and nonunanimous cases. We argue that unanimous cases should not have been included, for the votes in these cases reflect both legal and attitudinal variables. When we plot Douglas's support for civil liberties in nonunanimous cases we …
Another Look at Freshman Indecisiveness on the United States Supreme Court
Issue Specialization as a Variable in Opinion Assignment on the U. S. Supreme Court
Is issue specialization another variable in opinion assignment on the United States Supreme Court? I examined the civil liberties cases of the Warren Court and found that issue specialization was usual and commonplace on the Court. It was present, however, in narrow issues (such as right to counsel) and not in civil liberties in general or even in somewhat broader issues (such as criminal defendant cases). I also discovered that Chief Justice War…
Arrington & Brenner to Brams & Fishburn
Another Look at Approval Voting
Some of those who want to reform our present electoral system would replace plurality voting with approval voting. The proposed system has rarely been used in this country, and its adoption does not appear to be likely in the foreseeable future. It is then, basically, as an intellectual exercise that Professors Arrington and Brenner examine the case for approval voting in this article and find it wanting on a number of grounds, the most important…
To the Editor
Issue Specialization in Majority Opinion Assignment On the Burger Court
Unanimous decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court: Case stimuli and judicial attitudes
Majority Opinion Assignments and the Maintenance of the Original Coalition on the Warren Court
Conventional wisdom about the U.S. Supreme Court states that assignment of the majority opinion to the marginal member of the minimum winning original coalition might ensure its survival. Insofar as minimum winning original coalitions on the Warren Court are concerned (which original coalitions were identified by reference to the justices' docket books), the conventional wisdom is wrong. Although the marginal justice is substantially advantaged i…
Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United States Supreme Court
Do justices on the United States Supreme Court pursue strategies in their certiorari voting? We inspected seven terms from the Vinson, Warren, and Burger Courts and discovered that the justices use the error correcting, prediction, and majority strategies, particularly when the strategies are consistent with each other. Such use is not indiscriminate but usually is tempered by the presence of adverse conditions. We also investigated the error cor…
Ideological Voting on the Vinson Court: A Comparison of Original & Final Votes on the Merits
The Defection of the Marginal Justice on the Warren Court
Increasing the Size of Minimum Winning Original Coalitions on the Warren Court
Strategies in Certiorari Voting On the United States Supreme Court: A Reevaluation
ocial scientists are interested in how institutions set their agendas. The Supreme Court has virtual complete control over its agenda. We are interested, therefore, in how the Court exercises this control. In every fully argued and fully decided case before the United States Supreme Court the justices vote at least three times. The first vote is the vote to hear the case. It is usually a vote to grant or to deny a petition for a writ of certiorar…
Conformity Voting on the United States Supreme Court
This paper examines conformity voting on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1946 to 1975. We compare pairs of votes in which a justice switches from the minority at the original vote on the merits to the majority at the final vote (conformity voting) with pairs of votes in which a justice votes with the minority at both votes. Using PROBIT, we identify eight variables associated with switching. Particularly important are case salience and the size of th…
The Attitudinal Model and Fluidity Voting on the United States Supreme Court: A Theoretical Perspective
The attitudinal model, as applied to the United States Supreme Court, posits that voting by a justice on the Court is determined by his or her policy attitudes and by the location along the policy dimension of the stimulus provided by the case. Howard (1968) maintained that there was extensive fluidity in voting between the original vote on the merits and the final vote, that such fluidity deflated the ideological voting and that, as a consequenc…
The chief justices' self assignment of majority opinions in salient cases
This study examines the extent to which the chief justices on the United States Supreme Court self-assign the majority opinion in salient cases. The period covered is 1801 until the summer of 1989. I discovered that the chief justices as a group self-assigned 35% of the majority opinions in salient cases. Some chief justices, however, self-assigned at a much higher rate than others. The range extends from Marshall (89%) to Fuller (15). Two senior…
Political science (34 works) · Law (33 works) · Law (26 works) · Supreme court (25 works) · Politics (22 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (21 works) · Legal and Constitutional Studies (21 works) · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (17 works) · Voting (12 works) · Economic Justice (11 works)