IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v8y2011i3p556-586.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel

Author

Listed:
  • Keren Weinshall‐Margel

Abstract

This study examines decision making in Israel's Supreme Court regarding freedom of religion, while implementing models of decision making that were researched in other high courts, mainly the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. Two theoretical models were studied: the attitudinal model, according to which justices decide disputes consistent with their ideological positions; and the neo‐institutional approach, according to which the roles and norms of the court as an institution affect the justices' decisions. Conclusions indicate that justices' attitudes in Israel have a very strong influence on their votes on the merits. Religiously observant justices were significantly more likely to support freedom of religion claims than nonobservant justices. At the same time, the neo‐institutional claim that the law does matter is also supported by the findings. The results of the study, as compared to former studies conducted in other countries, can help better understand the influence of institutional arrangements on decision making in high courts.

Suggested Citation

  • Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:8:y:2011:i:3:p:556-586
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01220.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01220.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01220.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bailey, Michael A. & Maltzman, Forrest, 2008. "Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(3), pages 369-384, August.
    2. Laura Beth Nielsen & Robert L. Nelson & Ryon Lancaster, 2010. "Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post Civil Rights United States," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 175-201, June.
    3. Charles M. Cameron & Jee‐Kwang Park, 2009. "How Will They Vote? Predicting the Future Behavior of Supreme Court Nominees, 1937–2006," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 485-511, September.
    4. Charles R. Shipan, 2008. "Partisanship, Ideology, and Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 55-76, March.
    5. Sofia Amaral-Garcia & Nuno Garoupa & Veronica Grembi, 2009. "Judicial Independence and Party Politics in Constitutional Courts: The Case of Portugal," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/301515, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Paresh Kumar Narayan & Russell Smyth, 2007. "What Explains Dissent on the High Court of Australia? An Empirical Assessment Using a Cointegration and Error Correction Approach," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 401-425, July.
    7. Ashenfelter, Orley & Eisenberg, Theodore & Schwab, Stewart J, 1995. "Politics and the Judiciary: The Influence of Judicial Background on Case Outcomes," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 257-281, June.
    8. Kevin M. Scott, 2006. "Reconsidering the Impact of Jurisprudential Regimes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(2), pages 380-394, June.
    9. Segal, Jeffrey A. & Cover, Albert D., 1989. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 557-565, June.
    10. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guy Lurie & Amnon Reichman & Yair Sagy, 2020. "Agencification and the administration of courts in Israel," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 718-740, October.
    2. Matej Avbelj & Janez Šušteršič, 2019. "Conceptual Framework and Empirical Methodology for Measuring Multidimensional Judicial Ideology," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 2, pages 129-159, June.
    3. Monika Stachowiak-Kudła & Janusz Kudła, 2022. "Path dependence in administrative adjudication: the role played by legal tradition," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 301-325, September.
    4. Keren Weinshall & Lee Epstein, 2020. "Developing High‐Quality Data Infrastructure for Legal Analytics: Introducing the Israeli Supreme Court Database," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 416-434, June.
    5. David Gliksberg, 2014. "Does the Law Matter? Win Rates and Law Reforms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 378-407, June.
    6. Maxwell Mak & Andrew H. Sidman & Udi Sommer, 2013. "Is Certiorari Contingent on Litigant Behavior? Petitioners' Role in Strategic Auditing," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 54-75, March.
    7. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.
    2. Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, 2013. "Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 151-186.
    3. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    4. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    5. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "Strategic Judicial Preference Revelation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 113-137.
    6. Chen, Daniel L. & Yeh, Susan, 2022. "How do rights revolutions occur? Free speech and the first amendment," TSE Working Papers 22-1396, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2021. "Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 981-1019, July.
    8. Matej Avbelj & Janez Šušteršič, 2019. "Conceptual Framework and Empirical Methodology for Measuring Multidimensional Judicial Ideology," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 2, pages 129-159, June.
    9. Fałkowski, Jan & Lewkowicz, Jacek, 2021. "Are Adjudication Panels Strategically Selected? The Case of Constitutional Court in Poland," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    10. Nuno Garoupa & Marian Gili & Fernando Gómez‐Pomar, 2012. "Political Influence and Career Judges: An Empirical Analysis of Administrative Review by the Spanish Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 795-826, December.
    11. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. Jivas Chakravarthy, 2019. "Ideological diversity in standard setting," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 113-155, March.
    13. Guimaraesy, Bernardo & Meyerhof Salama, Bruno, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86146, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Noah Giansiracusa, 2023. "Branching on the bench: quantifying division in the supreme court with trees," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 36-58, March.
    15. Chen, Daniel L. & Sethi, Jasmin, 2016. "Insiders, Outsiders, and Involuntary Unemployment: Sexual Harrassment Exacerbates Gender Inequality," IAST Working Papers 16-44, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    16. Amaral-Garcia Sofia & Garoupa Nuno, 2017. "Judicial Behavior and Devolution at the Privy Council," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(3), pages 1-40, November.
    17. Michael A Bailey & Albert Yoon, 2011. "‘While there’s a breath in my body’: The systemic effects of politically motivated retirement from the Supreme Court," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 293-316, July.
    18. Guimarães, Bernardo de Vasconcellos & Salama, Bruno Meyerhof, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," Textos para discussão 440, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    19. Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2015. "Forecasting the decisions of the US Supreme Court: lessons from the ‘affordable care act’ judgment," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 9(1), pages 64-78.
    20. Giansiracusa, Noah & Ricciardi, Cameron, 2019. "Computational geometry and the U.S. Supreme Court," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-9.

    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:wly:empleg:v:8:y:2011:i:3:p:556-586. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.