Supreme Court shifts can be explained by either legal doctrine or judicial politics.
Evidence
These two accounts present strikingly different explanations of why the Supreme Court’s position changed from Bowers to Lawrence. The first account presents judges as primarily concerned with the accurate interpretation of the law. Thus, it emphasizes the legal reasoning that the Court offered in support of its decisions. It explains the shift in the Court’s rulings in terms of changes in the justices’ understanding of the legal issue presented, in their interpretation of the Constitution, and in their perspective on the role that the Court should play in resolving controversial issues. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2432
Categorization
- XREF: The legal-versus-political perspectives frame the entire study of judicial behavior; connects to the attitudinal model literature and to chapter content on why judges vote as they do. — connects to: Justice turnover explains the Court’s reversal in Lawrence. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2431; The Supreme Court’s docket has shrunk dramatically while its discretionary power grew — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 369; A justice’s rulings can depart radically from what the appointing president expected — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 752 (+3 more)
Broader Connections
- Judicial decisions result from attitudes, role conceptions, and institutional constraints interacting together.
#expands(0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1286 - A holding’s rationale can become immaterial as judicial perspectives shift.
#expands(0.78) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1296 - Traditional doctrinal explanations may genuinely explain many judicial decisions.
#qualifies(0.75) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 259