Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:57:48.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Review as a Response to Political Posturing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2011

JUSTIN FOX  and
MATTHEW C. STEPHENSON
JUSTIN FOX*
Affiliation:
Yale University
MATTHEW C. STEPHENSON*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Justin Fox is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Yale University, ISPS, P.O. Box 208209, New Haven, CT 06520. ([email protected]).
Matthew C. Stephenson is Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Griswold 509, Cambridge, MA 02138. ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We use an agency model to analyze the impact of judicial review on the incentives of elected leaders to “posture” by enacting bold but ill-advised policies. We find that judicial review may exacerbate posturing by rescuing leaders from the consequences of unwise policies, but may also discourage posturing by alerting voters to unjustified government action. We further find that judges will defer to the decision of elected leaders unless posturing is sufficiently likely. We then show how judicial review affects voter welfare, both through its effect on policy choice and through its effect on the efficacy of the electoral process in selecting leaders. We also analyze how the desirability of judicial review is affected by characteristics of the leaders and the judges.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 105 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 397 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ashworth, Scott, and Shotts, Kenneth W.. 2010. “Does Informative Media Commentary Reduce Politicians' Incentives to Pander?” Journal of Public Economics 94 (11–12): 838–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. 1989. “Electoral Accountability and Incumbency.” In Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, ed. Ordeshook, Peter C.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 121–48.Google Scholar
Avery, Christopher N., and Chevalier, Judith A.. 1999. “Herding over the Career.” Economic Letters 63 (3): 327–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan, and Stephenson, Matthew C.. 2002. “Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication.” American Political Science Review 96: 755–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Herron, Michael C., and Shotts, Kenneth W.. 2001. “Leadership and Pandering: An Equilibrium Theory of Executive Policymaking.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (3): 532–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clawson, Rosalee A., Kegler, Elizabeth R., and Waltenburg, Eric N.. 2001. “The Legitimacy-conferring Authority of the U.S. Supreme Court: An Experimental Design.” American Politics Research 29 (6): 566–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, David. 2008. “No Reason to Believe: Radical Skepticism, Emergency Power, and Constitutional Constraint.” University of Chicago Law Review 75: 1329–64.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1985. A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eisgruber, Christopher L. 2001. Constitutional Self-government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elhauge, Einer R. 1991. “Does Interest Group Theory Justify More Instrusive Judicial Review?” Yale Law Journal 101: 31–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance.” In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, eds. Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C., and Manin, B.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 55–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Shipan, Charles R.. 1990. “Congressional In-Šuence on Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6 (Special Issue): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Justin. 2007. “Government Transparency and Policymaking.” Public Choice 131: 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Justin, and Stephension, Matthew C.. 2009. “Judicial Review and Democratic Failure.” Yale University. Unpublished Manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Justin, and Van Weelden, Richard. 2010. “Partisanship and the Effectiveness of Oversight.” Journal of Public Economics 94 (9–10): 674–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Barry. 2002. “The Birth of an Academic Obsession: The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part Five.” Yale Law Journal 112: 153–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Barry. 2009. The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2000. “The Political Origins of Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalization: Lessons from Four Constitutional Revolutions.” Law and Social Inquiry 25 (1): 91–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2004. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., and Ross, Erica L.. 2010. “Did Liberal Justices Invent the Standing Doctrine? An Empirical Study of the Evolution of Standing, 1921–2006.” Stanford Law Review 62: 591–67.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie J., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 1996. “The Shepherding of Local Public Opinion: The Supreme Court and Lamb's Chapel.” Journal of Politics 58 (4): 1079–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Issacharoff, Samuel, and Pildes, Richard H.. 1998. “Politics as Markets: Partisan Lockups of the Democratic Process.” Stanford Law Review 50: 643–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, Ellen R. 1981. “Specialized Courts: A Choice.” Northwestern University Law Review 76 (5): 745–85.Google Scholar
Komesar, Neil K. 1994. Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur, and Sunstein, Cass R.. 1999. “Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation.” Stanford Law Review 51: 683–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R. N.d. “The New Judicial Politics of Legal Doctrine.” Annual Review of Political Sceince. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Levy, Gilat. 2004. “Anti-herding and Strategic Consultation.” European Economic Review 48 (3): 503–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskin, Eric, and Tirole, Jean. 2004. “The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government.” American Economic Review 94: 1034–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten, Roland, Gerard, and Tabellini, Guido. 1997. “Separation of Powers and Political Accountability.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 310–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Richard J. Jr. 1991. “The Unintended Effects of Judicial Review of Agency Rules: How Federal Courts Have Contributed to the Electricity Crisis of the 1990s.” Administrative Law Review 43: 7–29.Google Scholar
Pierce, Richard J. Jr. 1999. “Is Standing Law or Politics?” North Carolina Law Review 77: 1741–89.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. 2008. “Does Political Bias in the Judiciary Matter?: Implications of Judicial Bias Studies for Legal and Constitutional Reform.” University of Chicago Law Review 75: 853–83.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1998. “Against Constitutional Theory.” New York University Law Review 73: 1–22.Google Scholar
Prat, Andrea. 2005. “The Wrong Kind of Transparency.” American Economic Review 95 (3): 862–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prendergast, Canice. 1993. “A Theory of ‘Yes Men.’” American Economic Review 83 (4): 757–70.Google Scholar
Prendergast, Canice, and Stole, Lars. 1996. “Impetuous Youngsters and Jaded Old-timers: Acquiring a Reputation for Learning.” Journal of Political Economy 104: 1105–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, Steven A. 2007. “The Special Interest Race to CEO Primacy and the End of Corporate Governance Law.” Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 32: 345–92.Google Scholar
Rogers, James R. 1999. “Legislative Incentives and Two-tiered Judicial Review: A Game Theoretic Reading of Carolene Products Footnote Four.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (4): 1096–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2001. “Information and Judicial Review: A Signaling Game of Legislative–Judicial Interaction.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2009. “Casting the Gimlet Eye on Judicial Review: Can Judicial Review Be Democratically Debilitating?” Texas A&M University. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Rogers, James R., and Vanberg, Georg. 2007. “Resurrecting Lochner: A Defense of Unprincipled Judicial Activism.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23 (2): 442–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romano, Roberta. 2005. “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Making of Quack Corporate Governance.” Yale Law Journal 114: 1521–1611.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1988. “Against Ad Hocery: A Comment on Michelman.” Columbia Law Review 88: 1697–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzberger, Eli M. 1993. “A Positive Analysis of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, or: Why Do We Have an Independent Judiciary?” International Review of Law and Economics 13: 349–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 2000. “Incentives, Reputation, and the Inglorious Determinants of Judicial Behavior.” University of Cincinnatti Law Review 68: 615–36.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 2001. “The Dilemma of Ignorance: PGA Tour, Inc. v. Casey Martin.” Supreme Court Review 2001: 267–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 2006. “Do Cases Make Bad Law?” University of Chicago Law Review 73: 883–918.Google Scholar
Sherwin, Emily. 2006. “Judges as Rulemakers.” University of Chicago Law Review 73: 919–31.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Matthew C. 2008. “The Price of Public Action: Constitutional Doctrine and the Judicial Manipulation of Legislative Enactment Costs.” Yale Law Journal 118 (1): 2–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Matthew C. 2011. “Information Acquisition and Institutional Design.” Harvard Law Review 124 (6): 1422–83.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Matthew C., and Nzelibe, Jide O.. 2010. “Political Accountability under Alternative Institutional Regimes.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 22: 139–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 1984. “Naked Preferences and the Constitution.” Columbia Law Review 84: 1689–1732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 1985. “Interest Groups in American Public Law.” Stanford Law Review 38: 29–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swire, Peter P. 2004. “The System of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law.” George Washington Law Review 72: 1306–72.Google Scholar
Thayer, James Bradley. 1893. “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 7 (3): 129–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1979. “Public Decisions as Public Goods.” Journal of Political Economy 79: 913–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 1979. “Rethinking the Dormant Commerce Clause.” Wisconsin Law Review 1979: 125–65.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 1999. Taking the Constitution away from the Courts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian. 2006. Judging under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian. 2007. “Should We Have Lay Justices?” Stanford Law Review 59: 1569–1611.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian. 2009. Law and the Limits of Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2006. “The Core of the Case against Judicial Review.” Yale Law Journal 115: 1346–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Ernest A. 2000. “Constitutional Avoidance, Resistance Norms, and the Preservation of Judicial Review.” Texas Law Review 78: 1549–1614.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Fox and Stephenson supplementary material

Appendix

Download Fox and Stephenson supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 685.7 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.