Testing Murphy's Strategic Model
Assigning the Majority Opinion to the Marginal Justice in the Conference Coalition on the U.S. Supreme Court
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6179331 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Theodore S Arrington (University of North Carolina at Charlotte), Saul Brenner (University of North Carolina at Charlotte) |
| Year | 2008 |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 416-432 |
| Publication date | 2008-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Politics Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1532-673X • E-ISSN: 1552-3373 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1532673x07308357 |
| OpenAlex | W2120314072 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 11 |
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 justice in the conference coalition was more likely to result in an opinion joined by the other justices in the conference coalition, making it an effective defensive strategy. It may not, however, be a very effective offensive strategy
Economic Justice · Economics · Law and economics · Management · Offensive · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies
Handbook of small group research.
The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited
An economic theory of democracy
The Theory of Committees and Elections
Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999
Increasing the Size of Minimum Winning Original Coalitions on the Warren Court
A Conditional Model of Opinion Assignment on the Supreme Court
Measuring Issue Salience
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,13 |
| Citation span | 2011 - 2015 (5) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |