Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

On Estimating Personality Traits Of Us Supreme Court Justices, Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking, Patrick C. Wohlfarth

Political Science Faculty Publications

Psychological scholarship on personality is uniting with political science to redefine existing theories. This is clearly the case with research on judicial behavior and the US Supreme Court. But if this new approach is to survive and thrive, it must employ measures equal to the task. We show that Supreme Court Individual Personality Estimates, which seek to estimate justices’ personalities by examining their concurring opinions, suffer from a number of important methodological deficits that critically limit their usefulness. We briefly discuss what kinds of improved personality measures scholars should use instead and offer an improved set of estimates for one …

How To Turn Down Political Heat On Supreme Court And Federal Judges: Stop Signing Opinions, Scott S. Boddery

Political Science Faculty Publications

Chief Justice John Roberts rightly — albeit in an uncharacteristically direct manner — defended the integrity of the federal judiciary and its members from a direct affront from the president of the United States. Roberts’s defense sent President Donald Trump atwitter in a series of messages that doubled down on his previous ridicule of an “Obama Judge” from the “total disaster” Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [except]

What Senators Should Ask Brett Kavanaugh, Scott S. Boddery

Political Science Faculty Publications

At today’s confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, senators are attempting to decipher how Kavanaugh will rule on certain issue areas should he be confirmed to the high court. Senators will undoubtedly demand answers to their questions that ask whether Judge Kavanaugh will vote to uphold certain past cases, such as Roe v. Wade or Citizens United, and they’ll want a “simple yes or no” answer. While this line of questioning will primarily originate from the left side of the aisle this time around, this tactic is routinely used by both parties when vetting Supreme Court nominees. …

Kennedy Retirement Plunges Supreme Court Into Politics. Here's How To Turn Down The Heat., Scott S. Boddery

Political Science Faculty Publications

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision to retire from the Supreme Court could create a sea change in the court’s jurisprudence for years to come. The debate about his successor will once again underscore the fierce partisan politics that surround the court.

It’s worth recalling that the constitutional framers originally envisioned a Supreme Court that was insulated from such politics. In fact, Alexander Hamilton argued quite famously, in Federalist No. 78, that the court must be protected from the electorate in order to serve as a check against the political branches of government without fear of reprisals at the ballot box. [ …

Courts And Executives, Jeffrey L. Yates, Scott S. Boddery

Political Science Faculty Publications

William Howard Taft was both our twenty-seventh president and the tenth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -- the only person to have ever held both high positions in our country. He once famously commented that "presidents may come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever" (Pringle 1998). His remark reminds us that presidents serve only four-year terms (and are now limited to two of them), but justices of the Supreme court are appointed for life and leave a legacy of precedent-setting cases after departing the High Court. Of course, presidents also leave a legacy of important …

Hitting The "Bullseye" In Supreme Court Coverage: News Quality In The Court's 2014 Term, Michael A. Zilis, Justin Wedeking, Alexander Denison

Political Science Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

An Analysis Of Political And Legal Debates Concerning Medicaid Expansion In Virginia, Rick Mayes, Benjamin Paul

Political Science Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s historic June 2012 ruling regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius set the stage for a massive federalism battle over Medicaid expansion in the United States. The original language of the Act was intended to nationalize Medicaid by having every state expand their program’s eligibility to all individuals up to 138% of the federal poverty level. This would have significantly reshaped Medicaid, a joint federal-state health insurance program, into a universal entitlement for all low-income citizens. Currently, Medicaid eligibility varies dramatically from state to state. The Court held that the …