Fluidity on the Supreme Court
1956-1967
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6231332 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Saul Brenner (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1982 |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 388 |
| Publication date | 1982-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0092-5853 • E-ISSN: 1540-5907 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2111046 |
| OpenAlex | W2325976997 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 13 |
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 nonparticipation to affirm or reverse or vice versa). Now that the University of Texas Law Library has opened Justice Tom Clark's docket books, I can test whether the results of my earlier study hold for the post-Burton part of Clark's service-the 1956 to 1967 period
Economic Justice · Period (music · Political science · Politics · Supreme court · Voting · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Philosophy
Strategic Choice and Opinion Assignment On the U. S. Supreme Court
Voting Fluidity and Oral Argument on the U.S. Supreme Court
Passing and Strategic Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court
Bargaining Power in the Supreme Court
Conformity Voting on the United States Supreme Court
Public Opinion, the Attitudinal Model, and Supreme Court Decision Making
Media Attention and Deliberation on the Supreme Court
Taking Law Seriously
The Attitudinal Model and Fluidity Voting on the United States Supreme Court
To Prosecute or Not to Prosecute, That is the Question
How rational are justices on the Supreme Court of the United States? Doctrinal considerations during agenda setting
Voting Fluidity and the Attitudinal Model of Supreme Court Decision Making
Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court
| Unique citing works | 13 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,3 |
| Citation span | 1982 - 2023 (42) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 12 |