Ideology, Role Orientations, and Behavior in the State Courts of Last Resort

Judicial role theory holds that variance in judges' perceptions of their decisional roles is related to variance in decision making indirectly, by determining the degree to which judges permit their political attitudes and policy preferences to influence their votes. Judicial "activists" are thus presumed to be more overtly ideological in their decisions than "restraintists." This study tests judicial role theory against attitudinal and behavioral data for a national sample of state supreme court justices. As hypothesized, judicial activists are shown to be more ideological than their restraintist counterparts. The findings suggest that judicial role orientation is an important element of any comprehensive theory of judicial behavior.

[1]  John M. Scheb,et al.  Judicial Role Orientations, Attitudes and Decision Making: a Research Note , 1989 .

[2]  J. Gibson.  From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior , 1983 .

[3]  J. Gibson.  THE ROLE CONCEPT IN JUDICIAL RESEARCH , 1981 .

[4]  John W. Johnson.  Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits , 1981 .

[5]  J. Gibson.  Judges' Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model , 1978, American Political Science Review.

[6]  J. Howard.  Role Perceptions and Behavior in Three U.S. Courts of Appeals , 1977, The Journal of Politics.

[7]  J. Gibson.  Discriminant Functions, Role Orientations and Judicial Behavior: Theoretical and Methodological Linkages , 1977, The Journal of Politics.

[8]  Manfred W. Wenner.  The Concept of Judicial Role: A Methodological Note* , 1975 .

[9]  John T. Wold.  Political Orientations, Social Backgrounds, and Role Perceptions of State Supreme Court Judges , 1974 .

[10]  H. Glick,et al.  Supreme courts in state politics : an investigation of the judicial role , 1972 .

[11]  L. R. Baas,et al.  JUDICIAL ROLE PERCEPTIONS: A Q-TECHNIQUE STUDY OF OHIO JUDGES , 1972 .

[12]  Kenneth N. Vines,et al.  Law-Making in the State Judiciary: A Comparative Study of the Judicial Role in Four States , 1969, Polity.

[13]  D. James.  Role Theory and the Supreme Court , 1968, The Journal of Politics.

[14]  D. Jaros,et al.  The Judicial Role and Sentencing Behavior , 1967 .

[15]  T. Becker.  A Survey Study of Hawaiian Judges: The Effect on Decisions of Judicial Role Variations , 1966, American Political Science Review.

[16]  H. Spaeth.  The Judicial Restraint of Mr. Justice Frankfurter--Myth or Reality , 1964 .

[17]  H. Spaeth.  An Approach to the Study of Attitudinal Differences as an Aspect of Judicial Behavior , 1961 .