Justice Bork, or, be careful which supreme court nominees you choose to fight

Mikel Norris

Social Science Quarterly, 2024, vol. 105, issue 2, 147-159

Abstract: Objective This study uses counterfactual analysis to assess whether a hypothetical Supreme Court with Robert Bork as a member would have decided cases differently than the actual Supreme Court. Methods I utilize both a qualitative analysis, and a quantitative Bayesian counterfactual model to predict Supreme Court case outcomes from 1988 to 2012. Results The results show that several salient cases would have been decided differently, most of the decisions decided over the time frame would have remained unchanged. I also find that a hypothetical Supreme Court with Robert Bork as an associate justice would not have radically shifted rightward. Rather, the results show a brief rightward shift from 1991 to 1994, and a much longer and stronger rightward shift occurring after 2001. Conclusion The results suggest that scholars and pundits need to think more carefully about which Supreme Court nominees are should be contested in the advice and consent process – at least on political or ideological grounds.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13334

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:2:p:147-159

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0038-4941

Access Statistics for this article

Social Science Quarterly is currently edited by Robert L. Lineberry

More articles in Social Science Quarterly from Southwestern Social Science Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().