Maron W Sorenson
Biographic Data
| ID | 4395783 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Maron W Sorenson |
| GIVEN NAMES | Maron W |
| FAMILY NAME | Sorenson |
| SIGNATURE | SORENSON M W |
| AFFILIATIONS | Bowdoin College |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-5138-2243 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 4 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 21 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 4 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2013 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 2 |
The Supreme Court and Congress: Information, Threat, and the Separation of Powers
Separation of powers research concerning the Supreme Court focuses on when and how the political branches can constrain the Court. Recent work theorizes that the justices are willing to defer to the legislative branch in order to protect the Court’s institutional legitimacy, arguing that it’s not the threat of specific congressional override that ‘checks’ the Court. Rather, broader threats fulfill this function – threats in the form of court-curb…
Characters of Contention: Analyzing Partisan Behavior on Twitter During Supreme Court Confirmation Processes
We analyze a cache of tweets from partisan users concerning the confirmation hearings of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Using these original data, we investigate how Twitter users with partisan leanings interact with judicial nominations and confirmations. We find that these users tend to exhibit behavior consistent with offline partisan dynamics. Our analysis reveals that Democrats and Republicans express…
Asking Versus Telling: The Supreme Court’s Strategic Use of Questions and Statements During Oral Arguments
Supreme Court oral arguments are often characterized as the Court rapidly firing questions at attorneys who struggle to keep up; however, nearly half of the Court’s utterances come not as questions but as statements. I ask whether patterns of questioning and commenting behavior during oral arguments can predict case outcomes and justice votes. To answer this question, I develop a theory of strategic communication that accounts for the differentia…
Toward an Actor-Based Measure of Supreme Court Case Salience: Information-Seeking and Engagement during Oral Arguments
Case salience affects nearly every aspect of Supreme Court justices’ behavior, yet a valid actor-based measure of salience has remained elusive. Researchers have instead relied on external proxy indicators, such as amicus curiae participation and media coverage, to explain justices’ behavior. We propose a novel measurement of salience in which we use justices’ differential levels of engagement to generate actor-based measures of case and justice-…
Toward an Actor-Based Measure of Supreme Court Case Salience: Information-Seeking and Engagement during Oral Arguments
Case salience affects nearly every aspect of Supreme Court justices’ behavior, yet a valid actor-based measure of salience has remained elusive. Researchers have instead relied on external proxy indicators, such as amicus curiae participation and media coverage, to explain justices’ behavior. We propose a novel measurement of salience in which we use justices’ differential levels of engagement to generate actor-based measures of case and justice-…
Asking Versus Telling: The Supreme Court’s Strategic Use of Questions and Statements During Oral Arguments
Supreme Court oral arguments are often characterized as the Court rapidly firing questions at attorneys who struggle to keep up; however, nearly half of the Court’s utterances come not as questions but as statements. I ask whether patterns of questioning and commenting behavior during oral arguments can predict case outcomes and justice votes. To answer this question, I develop a theory of strategic communication that accounts for the differentia…
Characters of Contention: Analyzing Partisan Behavior on Twitter During Supreme Court Confirmation Processes
We analyze a cache of tweets from partisan users concerning the confirmation hearings of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Using these original data, we investigate how Twitter users with partisan leanings interact with judicial nominations and confirmations. We find that these users tend to exhibit behavior consistent with offline partisan dynamics. Our analysis reveals that Democrats and Republicans express…
Toward an Actor-Based Measure of Supreme Court Case Salience: Information-Seeking and Engagement during Oral Arguments
Case salience affects nearly every aspect of Supreme Court justices’ behavior, yet a valid actor-based measure of salience has remained elusive. Researchers have instead relied on external proxy indicators, such as amicus curiae participation and media coverage, to explain justices’ behavior. We propose a novel measurement of salience in which we use justices’ differential levels of engagement to generate actor-based measures of case and justice-…
Asking Versus Telling: The Supreme Court’s Strategic Use of Questions and Statements During Oral Arguments
Supreme Court oral arguments are often characterized as the Court rapidly firing questions at attorneys who struggle to keep up; however, nearly half of the Court’s utterances come not as questions but as statements. I ask whether patterns of questioning and commenting behavior during oral arguments can predict case outcomes and justice votes. To answer this question, I develop a theory of strategic communication that accounts for the differentia…
Characters of Contention: Analyzing Partisan Behavior on Twitter During Supreme Court Confirmation Processes
We analyze a cache of tweets from partisan users concerning the confirmation hearings of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Using these original data, we investigate how Twitter users with partisan leanings interact with judicial nominations and confirmations. We find that these users tend to exhibit behavior consistent with offline partisan dynamics. Our analysis reveals that Democrats and Republicans express…
The Supreme Court and Congress: Information, Threat, and the Separation of Powers
Separation of powers research concerning the Supreme Court focuses on when and how the political branches can constrain the Court. Recent work theorizes that the justices are willing to defer to the legislative branch in order to protect the Court’s institutional legitimacy, arguing that it’s not the threat of specific congressional override that ‘checks’ the Court. Rather, broader threats fulfill this function – threats in the form of court-curb…
Law (4 works) · Law (4 works) · Political science (4 works) · Supreme court (4 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (3 works) · Legal Education and Practice Innovations (2 works) · Ask price (1 works) · Cognitive psychology (1 works) · Computer Science (1 works) · Concurring opinion (1 works)