IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0269598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The dynamics of ideology drift among U.S. Supreme Court justices: A functional data analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xiner Zhou
  • Hans-Georg Müller

Abstract

We study the U.S. Supreme Court dynamics by analyzing the temporal evolution of the underlying policy positions of the Supreme Court Justices as reflected by their actual voting data, using functional data analysis methods. The proposed fully flexible nonparametric method makes it possible to dissect the time-dynamics of policy positions at the level of individual Justices, as well as providing a comprehensive view of the ideology evolution over the history of Supreme Court since its establishment. In addition to quantifying individual Justice’s policy positions, we uncover average changes over time and also the major patterns of change over time. Additionally, our approach allows for representing highly complex dynamic trajectories by a few principal components which complements other models of analyzing and predicting court behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiner Zhou & Hans-Georg Müller, 2022. "The dynamics of ideology drift among U.S. Supreme Court justices: A functional data analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0269598
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0269598
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0269598&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0269598?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. Kevin M. Quinn, 2007. "Assessing Preference Change on the US Supreme Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 365-385, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Daniel Martin Katz & Michael J Bommarito II & Josh Blackman, 2017. "A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Kehui Chen & Xiaoke Zhang & Alexander Petersen & Hans-Georg Müller, 2017. "Quantifying Infinite-Dimensional Data: Functional Data Analysis in Action," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 9(2), pages 582-604, December.
    5. Londregan, John, 1999. "Estimating Legislators' Preferred Points," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 35-56, January.
    6. Jackman, Simon, 2001. "Multidimensional Analysis of Roll Call Data via Bayesian Simulation: Identification, Estimation, Inference, and Model Checking," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 227-241, January.
    7. Brandon L. Bartels & Andrew J. O'Geen, 2015. "The Nature of Legal Change on the U.S. Supreme Court: Jurisprudential Regimes Theory and Its Alternatives," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(4), pages 880-895, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Zhang, Xiaoke & Wang, Jane-Ling, 2018. "Optimal weighting schemes for longitudinal and functional data," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 165-170.
    10. Yao, Fang & Muller, Hans-Georg & Wang, Jane-Ling, 2005. "Functional Data Analysis for Sparse Longitudinal Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 100, pages 577-590, June.
    11. Peter Hall & Hans‐Georg Müller & Fang Yao, 2008. "Modelling sparse generalized longitudinal observations with latent Gaussian processes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(4), pages 703-723, September.
    12. Bailey, Michael & Chang, Kelly H, 2001. "Comparing Presidents, Senators, and Justices: Interinstitutional Preference Estimation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 477-506, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    2. Iaryczower, Matias & Lewis, Garrett & Shum, Matthew, 2013. "To elect or to appoint? Bias, information, and responsiveness of bureaucrats and politicians," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 230-244.
    3. Lerner, Joshua Y. & McCubbins, Mathew D. & Renberg, Kristen M., 2021. "The efficacy of measuring judicial ideal points: The mis-analogy of IRTs," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Weishampel, Anthony & Staicu, Ana-Maria & Rand, William, 2023. "Classification of social media users with generalized functional data analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    6. Daniel W. Hill Jr., 2016. "Avoiding Obligation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(6), pages 1129-1158, September.
    7. F. Swen Kuh & Grace S. Chiu & Anton H. Westveld, 2019. "Modeling National Latent Socioeconomic Health and Examination of Policy Effects via Causal Inference," Papers 1911.00512, arXiv.org.
    8. Haocheng Li & John Staudenmayer & Raymond J. Carroll, 2014. "Hierarchical functional data with mixed continuous and binary measurements," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 802-811, December.
    9. Jeff Goldsmith & Vadim Zipunnikov & Jennifer Schrack, 2015. "Generalized multilevel function-on-scalar regression and principal component analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(2), pages 344-353, June.
    10. Gertheiss, Jan & Goldsmith, Jeff & Staicu, Ana-Maria, 2017. "A note on modeling sparse exponential-family functional response curves," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 46-52.
    11. Harold A. Hernández-Roig & M. Carmen Aguilera-Morillo & Rosa E. Lillo, 2021. "Functional Modeling of High-Dimensional Data: A Manifold Learning Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22, February.
    12. Jonathan P. Kastellec & Jeffrey R. Lax, 2008. "Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 407-446, September.
    13. James Lo, 2018. "Dynamic ideal point estimation for the European Parliament, 1980–2009," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 229-246, July.
    14. Brandon Marshall & Michael Peress, 2018. "Dynamic estimation of ideal points for the US Congress," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 153-174, July.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. James D. Morrow & Kevin L. Cope, 2021. "The limits of information revelation in multilateral negotiations: A theory of treatymaking," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 399-429, October.
    18. Swen Kuh & Grace S. Chiu & Anton H. Westveld, 2020. "Latent Causal Socioeconomic Health Index," Papers 2009.12217, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    19. Bjørn Høyland, 2010. "Procedural and party effects in European Parliament roll-call votes," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(4), pages 597-613, December.
    20. Jia Chen & Degui Li & Yingcun Xia, 2015. "New Semiparametric Estimation Procedure for Functional Coefficient Longitudinal Data Models," Discussion Papers 15/17, Department of Economics, University of York.

    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:plo:pone00:0269598. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.