This article proposes a new cross-national thesis for judicial decision making. The judicial politicization theory posits that judges on highly politicized high courts will be more likely to decide cases using ideological and attitudinal factors than judges at less politicized courts. The theory holds that informal norms regarding judicial appointment by the executive are more important than the formal selection mechanism in determining whether a judiciary is highly or less politicized. The results show significant attitudinal judicial voting at each high court and strong support for the contention that judges on highly politicized courts are more likely to decide cases ideologically.
Baum, Lawrence.1998. American courts: Process and policy. 4th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin .
2.
Bonneau, Chris W., and Melinda Gann Hall .2009. In defense of judicial elections . New York: Routledge.
3.
Brace, Paul R., and Melinda Gann Hall .1997. The interplay of preferences, case facts, context, and rules in the politics of judicial choice. Journal of Politics59:1206-31.
4.
Dubois, Philip L.1980. From ballot to bench: Judicial elections and the quest for accountability. Austin: University of Texas Press.
5.
Edwards, JohnLl. J.1987. The attorney general and the charter of rights. In Charter litigation, ed. Robert J. Sharpe, 45-68. Toronto, ON: Butterworth .
6.
Epstein, Lee, and Carol Mershon.1996. Measuring political preferences. American Journal of Political Science40:261-94.
7.
Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal .2005. Advice and consent: The politics of judicial appointments. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
Galanter, Marc.1974. Why the "haves" come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of social change. Law and Society Review9:95-160.
9.
Gates, John B., and Charles A. Johnson, eds. 1991. The American courts: A critical assessment. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
10.
Guarnieri, Carlo, and Patrizia Pederzoli .2002. The power of judges: A comparative study of courts and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
Hagle, Timothy M., and Harold J. Spaeth .1991. Voting fluidity and the attitudinal model of Supreme Court decision making. Western Political Quarterly44:119-28.
12.
Hall, Melinda Gann.2001. State supreme courts in American democracy: Probing the myths of judicial reform. American Political Science Review95:315-30.
13.
Hanssen, F. Andrew.1999. The effect of judicial institutions on uncertainty and the rate of litigation: The election versus the appointment of state judges . Journal of Legal Studies28:205-32.
14.
Hanssen, F. Andrew.2004. Learning about judicial independence: Institutional change in the state courts. Journal of Legal Studies33:431-73.
15.
Heydon, Dyson.2003. Judicial activism and the death of the rule of law. Australian Bar Review23:110-33.
16.
Holland, Kenneth M., ed. 1991. Judicial activism in comparative perspective. New York : St. Martin’s.
17.
Holland, Kenneth M.2000. Judicial activism in western Europe. In Handbook of global legal policy, ed. Stuart S. Nagel, 179-208. New York: Marcel Dekker.
18.
Johnson, Timothy R.2003. The Supreme Court, the solicitor general, and the separation of powers. American Politics Research31:426-51.
19.
Keck, Thomas M.2004. The most activist Supreme Court in history: The road to modern judicial conservatism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Koopmans, Tim.2003. Courts and political institutions: A comparative view . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Kritzer, Herbert M.2006. Law is the mere continuation of politics by different means: American judicial selection in the twenty-first century. Available from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=949946
22.
Lewis, Frederick P.1999. The context of judicial activism: The endurance of the Warren Court legacy in a conservative age. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
23.
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and David E. Klein .2006. The influence of jurisprudential considerations on Supreme Court decision-making: A study of conflict cases . Law and Society Review40:135-62.
24.
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Rorie Spill Solberg .2007. Judicial review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts. Political Research Quarterly60:71-90.
25.
McGuire, Kevin.1998. Explaining executive success in the U.S. Supreme Court . Political Research Quarterly51:505-26.
26.
Miller, Mark C.1998. A comparison of the judicial role in the United States and Canada. Suffolk Transnational Law Review22:1-25.
27.
Ostberg, C.L., and Matthew E. Wetstein .2004a. Economic cases and the attitudinal model in the Canadian Supreme Court. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
28.
Ostberg, C.L., and Matthew E. Wetstein .2004b. Equality cases and the attitudinal model in the Supreme Court of Canada. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
29.
Ostberg, C.L., and Matthew E. Wetstein .2007. Attitudinal decision making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
30.
Ostberg, C.L., Susan W. Johnson, Donald R. Songer, and Matthew Wetstein .2004. The nature and extent of attitudinal decision making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
31.
Ostberg, C.L., Matthew E. Wetstein, and Craig Ducat.2002. Attitudinal dimensions of Supreme Court decision making in Canada: The Lamer Court, 1991-1995. Political Research Quarterly55:235-56.
32.
Poole, Keith T.1998. Estimating a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science42:954-93.
33.
Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal .1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll-call voting. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
Richardson, Richard J., and Kenneth Vines.1970. The politics of federal courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
35.
Roach, Kent.2000. The attorney general and the charter revisited. University of Toronto Law Journal50:1-40.
36.
Schubert, Glendon.1968. Political ideology on the High Court. Politics3:21-40.
37.
Schubert, Glendon.1969a. The dimensions of decisional response: Opinion and voting behavior of the Australian High Court. In Frontiers of judicial research, ed. Joel B. Grossman and Joseph Tanenhaus, 163-95. New York: Wiley.
38.
Schubert, Glendon.1969b. Judicial attitudes and policy-making in the Dixon Court . Osgoode Hall Law Journal7:1-29.
39.
Segal, Jeffrey, and Albert Cover.1989. Ideological values and the votes of Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review83:557-65.
40.
Sheldon, Charles H., and Nicholas P. Lovrich Jr.1991. State judicial recruitment . In The American courts: A critical assessment, ed. John B. Gates and Charles A. Johnson, 166-85. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
41.
Smyth, Russell.2005. The role of attitudinal, institutional and environmental factors in explaining variations in the dissent rate on the High Court of Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science40:519-40.
42.
Solberg, Rorie Spill, and Stefanie A. Lindquist .2006. Activism, ideology and federalism: Judicial behavior in constitutional challenges before the Rehnquist Court, 1986-2000. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies3:237-61.
43.
Songer, Donald R., and Susan W. Johnson .2002. Attitudinal decision making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
44.
Spaeth, Harold J.2001. United States Supreme Court judicial database: 1953-2000 terms. 16th ICPSR version. East Lansing : Michigan State University, Department of Political Science; Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
45.
Tate, C. Neal, and Torbjorn Vallinder, eds. 1995. The global expansion of judicial power. New York: New York University Press.
46.
Tushnet, Mark.2003. Judicial review of legislation. In The Oxford handbook of legal studies, ed. Peter Cane and Mark Tushnet, 164-82. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
Wolfe, Christopher.1997. Judicial activism: Bulwark of freedom or precarious security? Rev. ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
