Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:38:28.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking Law Seriously

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2006

Barry Friedman
Barry Friedman
Affiliation:
New York University School of Law ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The positive literature on judicial behavior has not received nearly the attention it deserves. That literature has a great deal to offer, both to legal scholars and to those who are concerned about the role of legal institutions generally. For example, the literature has the potential to help shed light on the ability of courts to protect rights and foster economic development. This article argues that the positive literature has failed to see its due in large part because positive scholars often do not take law and legal institutions seriously enough.

The article identifies three specific sets of problems with the positive scholarship, offering detailed suggestions on how positive scholars can avoid them. The first is the problem of normative bite: Too often positive scholars of judicial behavior seem to be trapped in their own disciplinary debates, without pausing to examine why it is that they are studying what courts and legal institutions do. Second, positive scholars need to pay greater attention to the norms of the law, i.e., how law and legal institutions operate. A skeptical stance toward law is fine, but that skepticism should not get in the way of accurately understanding properly the mechanics of law and legal institutions. Finally, empiricists in particular must take great care regarding the data upon which they rely. It is difficult to obtain good data on the workings of legal systems. Data that are readily available often present a distorted picture of the system being studied.Barry Friedman is Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law ([email protected]). The author thanks Chuck Cameron, Lee Epstein, Jennifer Hochschild, Jeff Lax, Stefanie Lindquist, Liam Murphy, Jeff Segal, Seana Shiffrin, Jim Spriggs, and three anonymous reviewers for invaluable comments on prior drafts. All errors are the author's own. Jane O'Brien and Kathleen O'Neill provided terrific research assistance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 261 - 276
Copyright
© 2006 American Political Science Association

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

5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 697 (2004).
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936).
Baum, Lawrence. 2003. C. Herman Pritchett: Innovator with an ambiguous legacy. In The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior, ed. Nancy Maveety. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Benesh, Sara, and Harold J. Spaeth. 2001. “Real consensus: Individual justice agreement on case issues and legal provisions.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, November 7–10.
Bickel, Alexander M. 1962. The Least Dangerous Branch. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Brenner, Saul, Timothy M. Hagle, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1989. The defection of the marginal justice on the Warren court. Western Political Quarterly 42: 409–25.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1980. Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court: A reexamination. American Journal of Political Science 24: 526–35.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1982. Fluidity on the Supreme Court: 1956–1967. American Journal of Political Science 26: 388–90.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1988. Majority opinion assignments and the maintenance of the original coalition on the Warren Court. American Journal of Political Science 32: 72.Google Scholar
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).
Cameron, Charles M. 2002. Judicial independence: How can you tell it when you see it? And, who cares? In Judicial Independence at the Crossroads, eds. Stephen B. Burbank and Barry Friedman. California: Sage Publications.
Cameron, Charles M., Jeffrey A. Segal, and Donald Songer. 2000. Strategic auditing in a political hierarchy: An informational model of the Supreme Court's certiorari decisions. American Political Science Review 94: 101.Google Scholar
Caminker, Evan H. 1999. Sincere and strategic voting norms on multimember courts. Michigan Law Review 97: 2297.Google Scholar
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 2004. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Cross, Frank B. 1997. Political science and the new legal realism: A case of unfortunate interdisciplinary ignorance. Northwestern University Law Review 92: 251.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B. 2003. Decisionmaking in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. California Law Review 91: 1459.Google Scholar
Dorf, Michael C. 1995. Prediction and the rule of law. UCLA Law Review 42: 651.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law's Empire. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Epstein, Lee, and Gary King. 2002. Empirical research and the goals of legal scholarship: The rules of inference. University of Chicago Law Review 69: 1.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.
Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Harold J. Spaeth. 2001. The norm of consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science 45(2): 362–77.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Jennifer Nicoll Victor. 2002. Dynamic Agenda-Setting on the United States Supreme Court: An Empirical Assessment. Harvard Journal on Legislation 39: 395–433.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Olga Shvetsova. 2002. Heresthetical maneuvering on the US Supreme Court. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(1): 93–122.Google Scholar
European Association of Methodology. 2005. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Friedman, Barry. 2004. The Politics of Judicial Review. (unpublished draft available from author).
Friedman, Barry, and Anna L. Harvey. 2003. Electing the Supreme Court. Indiana Law Journal 78: 123.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E. 1998. Developing a positive theory of decisionmaking on U.S. Courts of Appeals. Ohio State Law Journal 58: 1635.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., and Lee Epstein. 1992. On the nature of Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review 86: 323.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2001. What's law got to do with it? Judicial behavioralists test the ‘legal model’ of judicial decision making. Law and Social Inquiry 26: 465.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2003a. Separating the wheat from the chaff in The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. In The Supreme Court Attitudinal Model Revisited: Authors Meet Critics, 13 Law and Courts Newsletter, Issue 3. http://www.law.nyu.edu/lawcourts/pubs/newsletter/summer03.pdf.
Gillman, Howard. 2003b. Robert G. McCloskey, historical institutionalism, and the arts of judicial governance. In The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior, ed. Nancy Maveety. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 982 (2003).
Hagle, Timothy M., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1991. Voting fluidity and the attitudinal model of Supreme Court decision making. Western Political Quarterly 44: 119.Google Scholar
Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1973. Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy. 3 vols. Oxford: Routledge.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
Kelly, Alfred H. 1965. Clio and the court: An illicit love affair. Supreme Court Review 1965: 119.Google Scholar
Klein, David. 2002. Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klerman, Daniel M., and Paul G. Mahoney. 2005. The value of judicial independence: Evidence from eighteenth-century England. American Law and Economic Review 7: 1.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A., and Lawrence G. Sager. 1986. Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal 96: 82.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A., and Lawrence G. Sager. 1993. The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review 81: 1.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M., and Mark J. Richards. 2003. Jurisprudential regimes and Supreme Court decisionmaking: The Lemon regime and establishment clause cases. Law & Society Review 37: 827.Google Scholar
Levi, Edward Hirsch. 1948. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McGuire, Kevin T., Charles E. Smith Jr., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 2004. “A spatial model of Supreme Court voting.” Prepared for the Midwest Political Science Association National Conference, Chicago, April 15–18.
Mahoney, Paul G. 2001. The common law and economic growth: Hayek might be right. Journal of Legal Studies 30: 503.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Maveety, Nancy, and John Anthony Maltese. 2003. J. Woodford Howard Jr.: Fluidity, strategy, and analytical synthesis in judicial studies. In The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior, ed. Nancy Maveety. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Michelman, Frank I. 1986. Traces of self-government. Harvard Law Review 100: 4.Google Scholar
Murphy, Liam B. 2000. Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peretti, Terri Jennings. 1999. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pinello, Dan. 1995. The Impact of Judicial-Selection Method on State-Supreme-Court Policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Popper, K.R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Post, Robert. 2001. The Supreme Court opinion as institutional practice: Dissent, legal scholarship, and decisionmaking in the Taft court. Minnesota Law Review 85: 1267.Google Scholar
Priest, George L., and Benjamin Klein. 1984. The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13: 1.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1980. The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of Legal System. New York: Oxford University Press.
Revesz, Richard L. 2002. A defense of empirical legal scholarship. University of Chicago Law Review 69: 169.Google Scholar
Revesz, Richard L. 1999. Ideology, collegiality, and the D.C. Circuit: A reply to Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards. Virginia Law Review 85: 805.Google Scholar
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
Richards, Mark J., and Herbert M. Kritzer. 2002. Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. American Political Science Review 96: 305.Google Scholar
Ruger, Theodore W., Pauline T. Kim, Andrew D. Martin, and Kevin M. Quinn. 2004. The Supreme Court Forecasting Project: Legal and political science approaches to predicting Supreme Court decisionmaking. Columbia Law Review 104: 1150.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 1962–1981. American Political Science Review 78: 891–900.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1986. Supreme Court justices as human decision makers: An individual-level analysis of the search and seizure sases. Journal of Politics 48: 938–55.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 2003. Glendon Schubert: The judicial mind. In The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior, ed. Nancy Maveety. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood. 1998. International law and international relations theory: A new generation of interdisciplinary scholarship. American Journal of International Law 92: 367.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Stefanie A. Lindquist. 1996. Not the whole story: The impact of justices' values on Supreme Court decision making. American Journal of Political Science 40: 1049–63.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Danna Smith, and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1995. Nonpublication in the Eleventh Circuit: An empirical analysis. Florida State University Law Review 16: 963.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1965. Jurimetrics and Professor Mendelson: A troubled relationship. Journal of Politics 27: 875.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spiller, Pablo T., and Matthew L. Spitzer. 1992. Judicial choice of legal doctrines. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 8(1): 8–46.Google Scholar
Staudt, Nancy C. 2004. Modeling standing. New York University Law Review 79: 612.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., David Schkade, and Lisa Michelle Ellman. 2004. Ideological voting on federal Courts of Appeals: A preliminary investigation. Virginia Law Review 90: 301.Google Scholar
Tiller, Emerson H., and Frank B. Cross. 1998. Judicial partisanship and obedience to legal doctrine: Whistleblowing on the federal Courts of Appeals. Yale Law Journal 107: 2155.Google Scholar
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988).
Whittington, Keith E. 2000. Once more unto the breach: Postbehavioralist approaches. Law & Social Inquiry 25(2): 601–34.Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob, and Scott Armstrong. 1979. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon and Schuster.