Richard L. Vining

Bio: Richard L. Vining is an academic researcher from University of Georgia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Politics. The author has an hindex of 11, co-authored 24 publications receiving 381 citations. Previous affiliations of Richard L. Vining include Emory University.

The Supreme Court in American Democracy: Unraveling the Linkages between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making

Abstract: There is wide scholarly agreement that the frequent replacement of justices has kept the Supreme Court generally attuned to public opinion. Recent research indicates that, in addition to this indirect effect, Supreme Court justices respond directly to changes in public opinion. We explore the two causal pathways suggested to link public opinion directly to the behavior of justices and the implications of the nature and strength of these linkages for current debates concerning Supreme Court tenure. The recent increase in the stability of Court membership has raised questions about the continued efficacy of the replacement mechanism and renewed debates over mechanisms to limit judicial tenure. Our analysis provides little evidence that justices respond strategically to public opinion but provides partial support for the idea that justices' preferences shift in response to the same social forces that shape the opinions of the general public. Our analysis offers preliminary evidence that—even in the absence o...

Measuring Case Salience in State Courts of Last Resort

Abstract: Scholars recognize that both citizens and elites may alter their behavior in response to salient stimuli. Epstein and Segal’s (2000) measure of salience for the United States Supreme Court provided...

Explaining High-Profile Coverage of State Supreme Court Decisions*

Abstract: Objective. In this article, we investigate the decision of media in the U.S. states to give high-profile coverage to state supreme court decisions. While research on the U.S. Supreme Court has forged an association between media coverage and the political salience of court decisions, scholars have been unable to examine such coverage in the increasingly important state courts of last resort. Methods. Utilizing new data of high-profile coverage over time in these courts, we examine the extent to which case characteristics, judicial behavior, and institutional variation influence media attention. Our empirical model covers 28,045 state supreme court cases over all 50 states, between the years 1995–1998. Results. Our findings indicate that the likelihood of high-profile coverage increases when certain case characteristics, particularly declarations of unconstitutionality, are present, in addition to dissent within a court. Despite the importance of institutional differences among state supreme courts, front-page coverage is not affected by this variation. Conclusions. In our conclusions, we evaluate those scenarios in which high-profile media coverage is more likely for state supreme court cases, and the possible implications this may have for judicial politics.

Grassroots Mobilization in the Digital Age Interest Group Response to Supreme Court Nominees

Abstract: This study examines how ten interest groups used electronic mail to mobilize their supporters in response to the Supreme Court nominations of John G. Roberts, Jr., Harriet Miers, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. The effects of group characteristics and goals, the dynamics of the confirmation process, and prior behavior are evaluated. Logit results reveal that group traits and preferences influence the likelihood of requests for action and donations. Funding requests were also conditioned by the stage of the process. The findings show that interest groups use Supreme Court turnover as an opportunity for political advocacy and organizational maintenance.

An Economic Theory of Supreme Court News

Abstract: In this article, we develop and test an economic theory of Supreme Court news. We hypothesize that information about the Third Branch is newsworthy when it has lower production costs and qualities attractive to the audiences and advertisers desired by news organizations. We examine Supreme Court news in elite newspapers, television news broadcasts, and online news sources during the October 2008 and 2010 terms. The results of our quantitative analyses indicate that all three types of news outlets are more likely to provide content about Supreme Court decisions with substantive importance but vary in their responses to costs and qualities appealing to the lay audience. We conclude by discussing the similarities and differences among news outlets with regard to their selection of Supreme Court information as news content.

The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy

Abstract: AmajorfocusofjudicialpoliticsresearchhasbeentheextenttowhichideologicaldivergencebetweentheCourtandCongress can explain variation in Supreme Court decision making. However, conflicting theoretical and empirical findings have given rise to a significant discrepancy in the scholarship. Building on evidence from interviews with Supreme Court justices and former law clerks, I develop a formal model of judicial-congressional relations that incorporates judicial preferences for institutional legitimacy and the role of public opinion in congressional hostility towards the Supreme Court. An original dataset identifying all Court-curbing legislation proposed between 1877 and 2006 is then used to assess the influence of congressional hostility on the Court’s use of judicial review. The evidence indicates that public discontent with the Court, as mediated through congressional hostility, creates an incentive for the Court to exercise self-restraint. When Congress is hostile,theCourtusesjudicialreviewtoinvalidateActsofCongresslessfrequentlythanwhenCongressisnothostiletowards the Court. D uring each of the two recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the United States Senate, the Judiciary Committee noted its concern with what it perceived to be an overly aggressive Supreme Court and an imbalance in the separation of powers. Chairman Arlen Specter opened the confirmation hearings of John Roberts by commenting, “I’m very much concerned about what I conceive to be an imbalance in the separation-of-powers between the Congress and the court.IamconcernedaboutwhatIbluntlysayisthedenigration by the court of congressional authority.” 1 Senator Specter’s comments highlight a claim about American democracy which has been at the center of a lively academic debate for decades: the Supreme Court is an insulated legal body, free to make decisions away from the political pressures of Congress and the Executive. In this article, I challenge that claim. First, relying on evidence from interviews with Supreme Court justices and former law clerks, I establish a set of assumptions about judicial preferences that departs from previ

How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract: Although scholars increasingly acknowledge a contemporaneous relationship between public opinion and Supreme Court decisions, debate continues as to why this relationship exists. Does public opinion directly influence decisions or do justices simply respond to the same social forces that simultaneously shape the public mood? To answer this question, we first develop a strategy to control for the justices' attitudinal change that stems from the social forces that influence public opinion. We then propose a theoretical argument that predicts strategic justices should be mindful of public opinion even in cases when the public is unlikely to be aware of the Court's activities. The results suggest that the influence of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions is real, substantively important, and most pronounced in nonsalient cases.