IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v83y2002i3p762-774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“In My Opinion . . .”: Justices’ Opinion Writing in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1946–1997

Author

Listed:
  • Saul Brenner
  • Eric S. Heberlig

Abstract

Objectives. We develop hypotheses to explain the opinion writing by justices on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1946–1997. Methods. We use data from the U.S. Supreme Court Database, Phases I and II, to examine the proportion of cases in which a justice writes an opinion each term as well as the differences between writing majority, dissenting, and concurring opinions. OLS regression with robust standard errors is the estimation procedure. Results. We find that a justice's position as Chief Justice, professional and education background, reputation ranking, and tenure on the Court can explain a justice's opinion writing. At the same time, we discover that particular variables have different affects on writing majority, dissenting, or concurring opinions. Conclusions. This study demonstrates the importance of both structural and personal background variables in explaining judicial behavior. It also shows the importance of analyzing different kinds of judicial opinions when explaining the justices’ opinion writing.

Suggested Citation

  • Saul Brenner & Eric S. Heberlig, 2002. "“In My Opinion . . .”: Justices’ Opinion Writing in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1946–1997," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(3), pages 762-774, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:3:p:762-774
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.00113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00113
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.00113?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:3:p:762-774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.