Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:06:52.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intracourt Dialogue

The Impact of US Supreme Court Dissents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Pamela Corley  and
Artemus Ward
Pamela Corley*
Affiliation:
Southern Methodist University
Artemus Ward
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University
*
Contact the corresponding author, Pamela Corley, at [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dissenting opinions are part of the ongoing constitutional dialogue among elites both inside and out of the judiciary. In order to illustrate how dissents contribute to the ongoing constitutional dialogue among elites, we examine the effect of dissents on majority opinions in the US Supreme Court. We empirically assess their operation on the contemporary Court. We find that dissents with certain characteristics are more effective than others on prompting the majority opinion to cite and discuss them. Specifically, majority opinions cite and discuss dissents that have a negative emotional tone; contain formal, logical, and hierarchical thinking; use adverbs; have a mixed ideological coalition; and cite a high number of Supreme Court precedents. These results suggest that strategic dissenters will have more in-house impact than others.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Spring 2020 , pp. 27 - 50
Copyright
© 2020 by Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

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.)

Footnotes

We wish to thank Ryan Black, Rachael Hinkle, James Spriggs, and the anonymous reviewers.

References

Alpers, Georg W., Winzelberg, Andrew J., Classen, Catherine, Roberts, Heidi, Dev, Parvati, Koopman, Cheryl, and Barr Taylor, C.. 2005. “Evaluation of Computerized Text Analysis in an Internet Breast Cancer Support Group.” Computers in Human Behavior 21:361–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandum, Erin O’Carroll, and Owen, Jason E. 2009. “Evaluating the Validity of Computerized Content Analysis Programs for Identification of Emotional Expression in Cancer Narratives.” Psychological Assessment 21:79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., and Reddick, Malia. 2002. “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alteration of Precedent.” Journal of Politics 64:534–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, Robert W., and Kessler, Joan B. 1987. “Legalese v. Plain English: An Empirical Study of Persuasion and Credibility in Appellate Brief Writing.” Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 20:301–21.Google Scholar
Brennan, William J. 1985. “In Defense of Dissents.” Hastings Law Journal 37:427–38.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, and Spaeth, Harold J. 1995. Stare Indecisis: The Alteration of Precedent on the Supreme Court, 1946–1992. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, Amanda C., and Ringsmuth, Eve M. 2016. “Jeremiad or Weapon of Words? The Power of Emotive Language in Supreme Court Opinions.” Journal of Law and Courts 4:159–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappalli, Richard B. 2000. “Improving Appellate Opinions.” Judicature 83 (6): 286–87, 318–20.Google Scholar
Claes, Monica, and de Visser, Maartje. 2012. “Are You Networked Yet? On Dialogues in European Judicial Networks.” Utrecht Law Review 8:100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Shuki J. 2012. “Construction and Preliminary Validation of a Dictionary for Cognitive Rigidity: Linguistic Markers of Overconfidence and Overgeneralization and Their Concomitant Psychological Distress.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 41:347–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corley, Pamela C., Steigerwalt, Amy, and Ward, Artemus. 2013. The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., and Wedeking, Justin. 2014. “The (Dis)advantage of Certainty: The Importance of Certainty in Language.” Law and Society Review 48:35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Frank B., and Pennebaker, James W. 2014. “The Language of the Roberts Court.” Michigan State Law Review 2014:853–94.Google Scholar
Edwards, Linda H. 2010. Legal Writing: Process, Analysis, and Organization. Frederick, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
Enquist, Ann, and Currie Oates, Laurel. 2009. Just Writing: Grammar, Punctuation, and Style for the Legal Writer. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Federal Judicial Center. 1991. Judicial Writing Manual. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2001. Legal Writing in Plain English. Rochester, NY: West.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2002. The Elements of Legal Style. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2009. Garner on Language and Writing. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2010. “Interviews with United States Supreme Court Justices: Anthony M. Kennedy.” Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 13:79–98.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan A. 2013. The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style. St. Paul, MN: West Academic.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. 2010. “The Role of Dissenting Opinions.” Minnesota Law Review 95:1–8.Google Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G., and Spriggs, James F. II. 2005. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hinkle, Rachael K., and Nelson, Michael J. 2018. “How to Lose Cases and Influence People.” Statistics, Politics, and Policy 8:195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Charles Evans. 1928. The Supreme Court of the United States: Its Foundation, Methods, and Achievements—an Interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Robert J. 2009. How Courts Impact Federal Administrative Behavior. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joksimovic, Srecko, Gasevic, Dragan, Kovanovic, Vitomir, Adescope, Olusola, and Hatala, Marek. 2014. “Psychological Characteristics of Communities of Inquiry: A Linguistic Analysis of Online Discussions.” Internet and Higher Education 22:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, Kayla N. 2016. “A Look into the Final Clinton-Trump Debate.” Wordwatchers, October 19. https://wordwatchers.com/2016/10/19/a-look-into-the-final-clinton-trump-debate/.Google Scholar
Jordan, Kayla N., and Pennebaker, James W. 2016. “A Look into the First Clinton-Trump Debate.” Wordwatchers, September 27. https://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/a-look-into-the-first-clinton-trump-debate/.Google Scholar
Kahn, Jeffrey H., Tobin, Renee M., Massey, Audra E., and Anderson, Jennifer A. 2007. “Measuring Emotional Expression with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count.” American Journal of Psychology 120 (2): 263–86.Google ScholarPubMed
Kindy, Kimberly, Horwitz, Sari, and Wan, William. 2017. “Simply Stated, Gorsuch Is Steadfast and Surprising.” Washington Post, February 18. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/gorsuch-profile/.Google Scholar
Klein, David E., and Hume, Robert J. 2003. “Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance.” Law and Society Review 37:579–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonhardt, David. 2000. “Word for Word: The Plain-Language Movement Hacking Through the Thickets of Corporatespeak.” New York Times, January 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/02weekinreview/word-for-word-plain-language-movement-hacking-through-thickets-corporatespeak.html?pagewanted=all&src-pm.Google Scholar
Long, Lance N., and Christensen, William H. 2008. “Clearly, Using Intensifiers Is Very Bad—or Is It.” Idaho Law Review 45:171–89.Google Scholar
Long, Lance N., and Christensen, William H. 2013. “When Justices (Subconsciously) Attack: The Theory of Argumentative Threat and the Supreme Court.” Oregon Law Review 91:933–59.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10:134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwese, Anne, and Snel, Marnix. 2013. “‘Constitutional Dialogue’: An Overview.” Utrecht Law Review 9:123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orme, Gregory K. 2013. “The Seven Deadly Sins of Legal Writing.” Utah Bar Journal 26 (3): 41–44.Google Scholar
Osbeck, Mark. 2012. “What Is ‘Good Legal Writing’ and Why Does It Matter?” Drexel Law Review 4:417–67.Google Scholar
Owens, Ryan, and Wedeking, Justin. 2011. “Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of U.S. Supreme Court Opinions.” Law and Society Review 45 (4): 1027–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan, and Wedeking, Justin. 2012. “Predicting Drift on Politically Insulated Institutions: A Study of Ideological Drift on the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 74:487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, James W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., and Blackburn, K. 2015. “The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015.” Working paper. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/31333.Google Scholar
Pennebaker, James W., Slatcher, Richard B., and Chung, Cindy K. 2005. “Linguistic Markers of Psychological State through Media Interviews: John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004, Al Gore in 2000.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 5 (1): 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Lewis F. Jr., Papers. Washington & Lee University, Lexington, VA.Google Scholar
Rice, Douglas. 2019. “Measuring the Issue Content of Supreme Court Opinions.” Journal of Law and Courts 7 (1): 107–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Layne. 2000. A Guide to Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com.Google Scholar
Schiess, Wayne. 2017. “Using Intensifiers Is Literally a Crime.” Michigan Bar Journal 96 (8): 48–51.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Sheehan, Reginald S. 1990. “Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals.” Political Research Quarterly 43:297–316.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., and Segal, Jeffrey A. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II., 1996. “The Supreme Court and Federal Administrative Agencies: A Resource-Based Theory and Analysis of Judicial Impact.” American Journal of Political Science 40:1122–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strunk, William Jr.,, and White, E. B. 1999. The Elements of Style. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Yla R., and Pennebaker, James W. 2010. “The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29 (1): 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urofsky, Melvin I. 2015. Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Vickrey, William C., Denton, Douglas G., and Jefferson, Wallace B. 2012. “Opinions as the Voice of the Court: How State Supreme Courts Can Communicate Effectively and Promote Procedural Fairness.” Court Review 48:74–85.Google Scholar
Walston-Dunham, Beth. 2012. Introduction to Law. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Ward, Artemus, and Weiden, David L. 2007. Sorcerers’ Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Joseph M. 2007. Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Witkin, B. E. 1977. Manual on Appellate Court Opinions. St Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Zinsser, William. 1980. On Writing Well: An Informal Guide to Writing Nonfiction. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar