Justices’ goals when writing concurrences continue to elude scholars. This project extends Baum’s contention that justices’ goals are bifurcated. The authors argue that justices use concurrences as means to both speak about their legal policy preferences and win by being members of the majority voting coalition. An analysis of the Burger and Rehnquist Courts’ concurring behavior illustrates that members of the Court are both authoring and joining concurrences in ways previously undocumented. Specifically, justices have become comfortable not only authoring concurrences but regularly joining others’ separate opinions as well—a trend the authors call choral-Court decision making.
Barnes, Robert.2007. Roberts supports Court’s shrinking docket. Washington Post, February 2, 2007.
2.
Baum, Lawrence.1997. The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
Baum, Lawrence.2006. Judges and their audiences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Benesh, Sara C., and Harold J. Spaeth .2003. The Supreme Court justice-centered judicial databases: The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts (1953-2000 terms). Documentation, Program for Law and Judicial Politics, Michigan State University.
5.
Brenner, Saul, and Eric S. Heberlig .2002. "In my opinion . . .": Justices’ opinion writing in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1946- 1997. Social Science Quarterly83:762-74.
6.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Christopher J. W. Zorn.1998. Of time and consensual norms in the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science42:874-902.
7.
Corley, Pamela C.2006. The impact of concurring opinions, presented to the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association , Chicago.
8.
Edelman, Paul H., and Jim Chen.2001. The most dangerous justice rides again: Revisiting the power pageant of the justices. Minnesota Law Review86:131-222.
9.
Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas Walker.2007. The Supreme Court compendium. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
10.
Epstein, Lee, Thomas Walker, and William Dixon.1988. On the mysterious demise of consensual norms in the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Politics50:361-89.
11.
Friedman, Barry.2006. Taking law seriously. Perspectives on Politics4:261-76.
12.
Gates, John. B, and Glenn A. Phelps .1996. Intentionalism in constitutional opinions. Political Research Quarterly49: 245-61.
13.
Gerber, Scott D., and Keeok Park.1997. The Quixotic search for consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court: A cross-judicial empirical analysis of the Rehnquist Court justices. American Political Science Review91:390-408.
14.
Hansford, Thomas G., and James F. Spriggs II.2006. The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
Haynie, Stacia L.1992. Leadership and consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Politics54:1158-69.
16.
Hettinger, Virginia A., Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy L. Martinek .2003. Separate opinion writing on the United States Courts of Appeals. American Politics Research31:215-50.
17.
Hettinger, Virginia A., Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy L. Martinek .2004. Comparing attitudinal and strategic accounts of dissenting behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science48:123-37.
18.
Hettinger, Virginia A., Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy L. Martinek .2006. Judging on a collegial court . Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
19.
Keck, Thomas M.2004. The most activist Supreme Court in history: The road to modern judicial conservatism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Klein, David E.2002. Making law in the United States Courts of Appeals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Lane, Charles.2004. Finality seems to elude high court’s grasp. Washington Post, July 4, 2004.
22.
Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs II , and Paul J. Wahlbeck.2000. Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Martin, Andrew S., and Kevin M. Quinn .2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis10:134-53.
24.
Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 368 (2001).
25.
O’Brien, David M.1999. Institutional norms and Supreme Court opinions: On reconsidering the rise of individual opinions. In The Supreme Court in American politics: New institutionalist interpretations, ed. Howard Gillman and Cornell W. Clayton, 91-114. Lawrence : University Press of Kansas.
26.
O’Brien, David M.2003. Storm center: The Supreme Court in American politics. 6th ed. New York: Norton .
27.
O’Connor, Sandra Day.2003. The majesty of the law: Reflections of a Supreme Court justice. New York: Random House .
28.
Post, Robert C., and Reva B. Siegel .2003. Protecting the Constitution from the people: Juricentric restrictions on section five power. Indiana Law Journal78:1-45.
29.
Ray, Laura Krugman.1990. The Justices write separately: Uses of the concurrence by the Rehnquist Court. University of California, Davis, Law Review23:777-831.
Scalia, Antonin.1994. The dissenting opinion. Journal of Supreme Court History19:33-44.
32.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth .1993. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth .2002. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Spaeth, Harold J.2007. The original United States Supreme Court judicial database, 1953-2005 terms. http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/juri/sctdata.htm .
35.
Spaeth, Harold J., and Jeffrey A. Segal .1999. Majority rule or minority will: Adherence to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Spriggs, James F., Forrest Maltzman, and Paul Wahlbeck.1999. Bargaining on the U.S. Supreme Court: Justices’ responses to majority opinion drafts. Journal of Politics61: 485-506.
37.
Sullivan, Kathleen. 1992. The justices of rules and the justices of standards. Harvard Law Review 106:24-123. Wahlbeck, Paul, James F. Spriggs II, and Forrest Maltzman. 1999. The politics of dissents and concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly 27: 488-514.
38.
Way, Lori Beth, and Charles C. Turner .2006. Disagreement on the Rehnquist Court: The dynamics of Supreme Court concurrence. American Politics Research34:293-318.
39.
Wolfe, Christopher.2004. The Rehnquist Court and "conservative judicial activism ." In That eminent tribunal, ed. Christopher Wolfe, 199-224. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
