Some Clarifications Regarding a Theory of Supreme Court Coalition Formation

Bibliographic Data

ID11064989
AuthorsDavid W Rohde (0000-0002-0661-6266, corresponding author)
Year1977
Volume21
Issue2
Pages409
Publication date1977-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0092-5853 • E-ISSN: 1540-5907
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/2110502
OpenAlexW2334915740
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited3

This note is deliberately entitled a clarification and not a rejoinder, because my primary purpose is not to dispute the criticisms these authors have offered of some of my work on Supreme Court coalition formation. This is particularly true of the Hoyer-Mayer-Bernd critique. I agree by and large with the general points they make at the beginning of their paper. Indeed, I am not bothered greatly by their application of these general comments to my earliest work on opinion coalitions in the Court (Rohde 1972a); I agree with a number of those points also-mainly those relating to the statistical model. What does trouble me, however, is the confusion that is apparent in this critique regarding the relationship among the three separate statements of my coalition research (Rohde 1972a, 1972b, Rohde and Spaeth 1976), and it is primarily this point I wish to address. The confusion to which I referred is apparent from the statements these authors make regarding the three works. For example, they say Since virtually all of the analysis in his MJPS paper is subsumed in Rohde's article in the Niemi and Weisberg reader, we will focus attention on the latter (Hoyer et. al., footnote 5). They also state (Hoyer, et. al., footnote 2)

Confusion · Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Psychoanalysis · Sociology · Supreme court · Game Theory and Voting Systems · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Philosophy · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub