The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited

by Jeffrey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth

Authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, this study systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants--the legal and rational choice. Using the U.S. Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions.

Genres: Political Science, Law, Nonfiction

480 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Do you ever get the sense that the Supreme Court justices aren't really carefully weighing precedent, their thoughtful interpretation of the Constitution, and the details of the case at hand when they hand down a decision? Does it seem, instead, that they are just voting based on their own personal ideology? According to Segal, if you do sometimes have this suspicion, you are in fact correct.

The ceremony, the black robe, the raised bench--these are all just ways to muddying up the waters of what is really going on. In case after case, the bottom line is that the justices vote on cases in such a way as to try to see their own policy and ideological preferences enacted. This is the entire premise of this book, and the argument seems very strong indeed. Bush v. Gore is not really an outlier where politics intruded on the sacred court. It was merely a case that was so obvious that it was impossible to disguise what was happening. In reality, politics wins out in virtually every instance.

This is an important book for people that want to understand how the Court genuinely works. Justices are not neutral observers and it is silly to think that they would or should be. They are political appointees and politics is at the root of how they get these jobs and why they want these jobs.

I did hover between four and five stars, not because of a flaw in the book, but because it is no easy read. I went with five in the end because I think the book is important enough to slog through even if your eyes occasionally glaze over. But know that you are entering the realm of academic prose if you pick this one up.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

you have to read this to understand SCOUTS. have to.

[Carsen Codel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Filled with solid and interesting research but in some instances succumbs to the idea of its own prowess as a social science theory. What I mean is that falsifiability is a big reason why the authors justify their theory as the most correct, but in so doing both 1) don’t discuss enough, unless I am misremembering, about shaking the endogenous nature of using findings to point out what they see as ideology, or even using it as an input (maybe??? I don’t know, I read this book so piecemeal) and 2) fail to account for the fact that people do different things for different reasons and that not everything is driven by the same (set of) force(s).

Are they probably more right than the legalistic and separation of powers/rational choice theories? I believe so; they appear much closer to the truth given the course of the Supreme Court over the last twenty-some years since publication. But does it explain everything? No, and I don’t think any theory can, or should.

[Dylan Groves · Rating 3 out of 5]

when its all said and done, supreme court justices just do what they want.

[Micheal Hoffman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Essentially, this book argues that the traditional legal model of the courts that the public generally associates with the judicial branch does not hold at the Supreme Court. The book is well researched and the qualitative support is intriguing to say the least. Particularly some of the quotes from people like Justice Scalia.