IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ioe/doctra/380.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Judicial Preference Revelation

Author

Listed:
  • Álvaro Bustos
  • Tonja Jacobi

Abstract

We examine the revelation of preferences of justices whose true ideologies are not known at the moment of entering the Court but gradually become apparent through their judicial decisions. In the context of a two-period President-Senate-Court game — a generalization of Moraski and Shipan (1999) — we show that, while moderate new justices always vote truthfully, more extreme new justices may vote untruthfully at the beginning of their tenures. By concealing their true ideologies, new justices move the perceived ideology of the overall Court closer to their own, which in turn influences the selection of future members of the Court. New justices will sometimes have an incentive to exaggerate the extremeness of their overall preferences, and at other times they will seek to appear more moderate. The manifestation of the untruthful voting will depend on the characteristics of the cases they face, their initial ideologies and the ideologies of the President and Senate. Additionally, untruthful voting is more likely when the probabilities of retirement of the current justices are large. Finally, we assess judicial incentives to shape their perceived retirement probabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2010. "Strategic Judicial Preference Revelation," Documentos de Trabajo 380, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
  • Handle: RePEc:ioe:doctra:380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.economia.uc.cl/docs/dt_380.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2002. "Speaking Up: A Model of Judicial Dissent and Discretionary Review," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0209, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics, revised Jan 2003.
    2. Bailey, Michael & Chang, Kelly H, 2001. "Comparing Presidents, Senators, and Justices: Interinstitutional Preference Estimation," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 477-506, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Spiller, Pablo T. & Tiller, Emerson H., 1996. "Invitations to override: Congressional reversals of supreme court decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 503-521, December.
    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. Fiorino, Nadia & Gavoille, Nicolas & Padovano, Fabio, 2015. "Rewarding judicial independence: Evidence from the Italian Constitutional Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 56-66.
    2. Emerson H. Tiller, 2015. "The Law and Positive Political Theory of Panel Effects," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 35-58.
    3. Bustos, Álvaro & Jacobi, Tonja, 2015. "Communicating judicial retirement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 107-118.
    4. Jacobi, Tonja & Kontorovich, Eugene, 2015. "Why judges always vote," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 190-199.

    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. Joshua B. Fischman, 2015. "Do the Justices Vote Like Policy Makers? Evidence from Scaling the Supreme Court with Interest Groups," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 269-293.
    2. Ryan J. Owens, 2010. "The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 412-427, April.
    3. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour, 2013. "Kingmakers and leaders in coalition formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Jule Krüger & Ragnhild Nordås, 2020. "A latent variable approach to measuring wartime sexual violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 728-739, November.
    5. Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 0. "Issue attention on international courts: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    6. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    7. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    8. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2017. "Peer Effects on the United States Supreme Court," Economics Papers 2017-W02, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    9. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Roll Call Data and Ideal Points," Wallis Working Papers WP42, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
    10. Eijffinger, Sylvester C W & Mahieu, Ronald J & Raes, Louis, 2015. "Hawks and Doves at the FOMC," CEPR Discussion Papers 10442, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    12. Crane, Harry, 2017. "A hidden Markov model for latent temporal clustering with application to ideological alignment in the U.S. Supreme Court," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 19-36.
    13. Martin Andrew D. & Hazelton Morgan L.W., 2012. "What Political Science Can Contribute to the Study of Law," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 511-529, October.
    14. Paola Annoni & Nicholas Charron, 2019. "Measurement Assessment in Cross-Country Comparative Analysis: Rasch Modelling on a Measure of Institutional Quality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 31-60, January.
    15. Stefan Krasa & Mattias Polborn, 2014. "Policy Divergence and Voter Polarization in a Structural Model of Elections," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 31-76.
    16. Sharece Thrower, 2019. "Presidential action and the Supreme Court: The case of signing statements," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(4), pages 677-698, October.
    17. Jivas Chakravarthy, 2019. "Ideological diversity in standard setting," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 113-155, March.
    18. Mason Dyana P., 2017. "Measuring Latent Constructs in Nonprofit Surveys with Item Response Theory: The Example of Political Ideology," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 91-110, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Robert J. Carroll & David M. Primo & Brian K. Richter, 2016. "Using item response theory to improve measurement in strategic management research: An application to corporate social responsibility," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 66-85, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Court; judicial preferences; evolution preferences; truthful vote;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)
    • K30 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - General
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General

    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:ioe:doctra:380. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jaime Casassus). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iepuccl.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.