Showing papers by "Donald R. Songer published in 2009"

Assessing the Applicability of Strategic Theory to Explain Decision Making on the Courts of Appeals

Abstract: The focus of this analysis is whether a strategic perspective provides a useful approach that enhances an understanding of broad patterns of judicial decision making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. ...

Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conf lict A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts

Abstract: According to attitudinal theorists, justices on the U.S. Supreme Court decide cases largely on political preferences that fall within one dimension of ideology. The focus of this study is to test whether a unidimensional ideological model explains the voting behavior of Canadian Supreme Court justices (1992—1997). The factor-analytic results in three areas of law, two of which have never been examined in this way in Canada, provide substantial evidence of ideological voting. Yet unlike the U.S. justices of the Rehnquist court, Canadian justices exhibit a much higher degree of ideological complexity. These findings call into question the widely held assumption of unidimensional decision making that is in vogue in the U.S. literature today, and they suggest that attitudinal theorists and comparative scholars must be cognizant that multiple dimensions of attitudinal voting might occur in high courts that are not as ideologically polarized as the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Unanimous Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada as a Test of the Attitudinal Model

Abstract: . Most of the empirical work on the decision making of justices on the Supreme Court of Canada has taken as its exclusive focus the divided decisions of the Court. In contrast to this extensive body of research on divided decision, the much more limited knowledge of unanimous decisions is troubling because such decisions constitute nearly three-quarters of all of the formal decisions of the Court. The analysis reported below provides a first step towards understanding the neglected nature of unanimous decisions. This investigation of the nature and causes of unanimity in the Supreme Court of Canada explores two competing explanations: one drawn from the most widely accepted general explanation of judicial voting (that is, the attitudinal model) and the other from the perspectives of the justices themselves. To determine that perspective, the author interviewed ten of the current or recent justices on the Court. After describing these two alternative accounts of unanimity, empirical tests are conducted of the implications of each view. We find substantially more support for the perspectives of the justices than for the perspective derived from the attitudinal model on unanimity.Resume. La majeure partie du travail de recherche empirique portant sur la maniere dont les juges de la Cour supreme du Canada prennent leurs decisions se concentre exclusivement sur les decisions divisees de cette institution. En contraste avec cette foison d'etudes sur les decisions divisees, le corpus beaucoup plus limite de connaissances sur les decisions unanimes pose un probleme important, car celles-ci representent presque les trois quarts de la totalite des decisions formelles de la Cour supreme. L'analyse presentee ci-dessous se veut un premier pas vers une meilleure connaissance de la nature, trop negligee jusqu'a present, de ces decisions unanimes. Cette investigation sur la nature et les causes de l'unanimite dans les decisions de la Cour supreme du Canada explore deux voies se trouvant en competition : l'une qui resulte de l'explication la plus largement acceptee du vote judiciaire (soit le modele attitudinal), et l'autre qui decoule de la perspective personnelle des juges. Pour elucider cette perspective propre des juges, les auteurs ont interviewe dix juges actuels et recents de la Cour supreme du Canada. Apres avoir decrit ces deux explications alternatives de l'unanimite, ils effectuent des tests empiriques sur les implications respectives du modele attitudinal et des perspectives propres des juges. L'etude revele que les perspectives propres des juges ont beaucoup plus de poids que la perspective derivee du modele attitudinal en ce qui concerne l'unanimite.

Judge Gender and the Voting Behavior of Justices on Two North American Supreme Courts

Abstract: While there have been a number of previous studies examining the similarities and differences in the voting behavior of male versus female judges, few have attempted cross-national comparisons. Since the early 1980s, the Supreme Courts of both the United States and Canada have had at least one female justice sitting at all times. The first female justice in the United States and the first female justice in Canada are on record as having very different beliefs about the practical effect of gender diversification of appellate courts. The present study is the first analysis to explore which of those perceptions about the consequences of such diversification is consistent with the actual patterns of voting by the justices on both courts. We find that in Canada, there are substantial gender differences on many of the significant policy areas that produce divisions on the Court. However, in the United States, gender differences disappear when one controls for the political party of the justice.