Research topic: Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court
Research question: Why does the use of attitude model in the Supreme Court rejects the dissenting opinions from the Congress?
Practical significance
The use of attitudinal model in the Supreme Court is the matter at hand and an issue which has caused a controversy. The model affirms that judges concentrate more on ideological space and solve cases using ideological attitudes and values. In real world, attitude model make decisions with respect to personal political preferences and attitudes to ensure that a conclusion is made from real world perspective[1]. Rather than focusing on the set doctrine and legal precedent, the judges rely on the ideology that there is no need to focus on a higher political office since the Supreme Court itself is the high judicial office. Judges do not fear political accountability and they have a total discretion for judicial cases. Generally, attitudinal model allow judges to consider goals and situations while making decisions and conclusion is made from constitutional arrangements. Given that the Supreme Court presents the judicial pyramid and does not adhere to the electoral sanctions, the argument made is that the personal attitudes and ideologies are invalid and they should not make a final conclusion[2]. For this reason, there is a possibility that judges do not adhere to their true preferences and their decisions are not genuine as they do not apply to lower appellate courts.
Theoretical significance
In making decision, judges create affirmative action plans in institutional protection. With affirmative action, the court makes assumptions that it offers complete information by apply their sincere preferences[3]. The court needs the freedom to act and to make decision using a constitutional mode. On the other hand, the Congress argues that in order to make and implement successful decisions, judges should cooperate and consider the preferences of the congress[4]. While the court argues that the congress will override constitutional interpretations and statutory decisions, it should allow the congress to offer reactions on issues of law. In addition, the Congress should react to the decisions made and make a new course of action. It is important to understand that in the political process, ‘capacity to react’ is a fundamental element which allows the congress to enact statutes on congressional matters[5].
Pertinent search terms
Separation-of-powers
Positive political theory
Appellate courts and appellate procedures
Constitutional courts
Decision making
Courts-United States
Justice administration
United Stated Supreme Court
Attitudinal model
Ideological preferences/ congressional preferences
American political system
Procedures to Ensure Balance of Views
To come up with a workable solution, I will review both the Supreme Court and the Congress and their role in making decision. First, I will find a credible evidence whether the ideological lines used by the Supreme Court is the root cause of policy disagreement. Some studies support the Supreme Court use of attitudinal model by stating that judges are influenced by situational and environmental social forces and the latter shapes their preferences in making decisions[6]. In addition, the attitudinal model is effective in making constitutional decisions. On the other hand, other studies find that Congress should react to the decision to make correct issues on law and clarify their opinion. In addition, Congress should make decision regarding statutory issues and for this reason, it should play role in formulating, adopting and passing legislation[7]. To avoid bias, I will conduct an extensive review and consider both collective preferences in the Supreme Court and the separation-of-powers. Last, I will review the role of strategic behavior in the Supreme Court and how the strategic behavior can be used to solve the conflict arising between the Court and the Congress in discussing both constitutional civil rights and statutory economic cases. Some questions that will help in the research include:
Does the separation of powers have any impact in the decision making?
What is a Court-Congress relation?
Should the Supreme Court consider strategic behavior in making constitutional and statutory decisions?
What are the limitations of the attitudinal model?
Do attitudes and preferences alive to effective final decision?
Why are the attitudes and sincerity of the decision-maker questioned?
Relevant Search Materials:
Sources that I will use to conduct a compressive research include; Google Scholar, Online Journals, Peer-reviewed journals from EBSCO Publishing and relevant .gov, journals. These sources are reliable as they are written by professionals in the American political Science, Law and Social Policy and they provide information from research results. Example of these sources includes;
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=0eb811b5-b21b-42b1-af49-87f241ee4fea%40sessionmgr4006
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/ccameron/files/segal.etal_.jop_.aug1995.pdf
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=ec6bfb80-83e6-4146-8e0d-9ade0a96d549%40sessionmgr4010
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=a5631b8d-febd-4e99-b440-62d4596ac12e%40sessionmgr4008
Bibliography
Segal, Jeffrey A. "Separation-Of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts." American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 1, Mar. 1997, p. 28-44.
Segal, Jeffrey, and Harold Spaeth. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2015
[1] Segal, Jeffrey, and Harold Spaeth. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2015
[2] Ibid, 3
[3] Segal, Jeffrey A. "Separation-Of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts." American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 1, Mar. 1997, p. 28-44.
[4] Ibid, 29
[5] Ibid, 31
[6] Ibid 33
[7] Ibid 35
