Congress frequently seeks to reverse the policies of the U.S. Supreme Court. Much is known about the circumstances in which lawmakers confront the Court and whether they are likely to succeed. Still, we do not know how individual members of Congress make these decisions. Why do some mem bers defer to judicial policymaking, while others openly oppose it? The case of the Flag Protection Amendment of 1990, considered in response to the Court's decisions on the issue of flag burning, provides an illustrative setting in which to examine this question. Despite evidence that congres sional reaction to judicial policy is distinctive, our model of the vote sug gests that the nature of institutional conflict does not shape the decision. Rather, members largely reflect ideological and constituent preferences when deciding whether to reverse the Court.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, John H., and Forrest D. Nelson .1984. Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models. Beverly Hills: Sage.
2.
Bawn, Kathleen, and Charles R. Shipan .1993. "Congressional Response to Supreme Court Decisions: An Institutional Perspective." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association , Washington, D.C.
3.
Biskupic, Joan.1989. "Senate Amends, Then Passes Bill on Flag Desecration ." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report47: 2646.
4.
_. 1990. "Critics of Measure Win Fight, But Battle Scars Run Deep ." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report48: 2063-64.
5.
Congressional Districts in the 1980s. 1983. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
6.
Duncan, Phil, ed. 1989. Politics in America 1990. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
7.
Eskridge, William N., Jr. 1991. "Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions." Yale Law Journal101: 331-455.
8.
Felice, John D., and John C. Kilwein .1993. "High Court-Legislative Relations: A View from the Ohio Statehouse." Judicature77: 42-48.
9.
Fenno, Richard F., Jr. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.
10.
Fiorina, Morris P1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies . Lexington, MA: Heath.
11.
. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
12.
Fisher, Louis.1988. Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretation as Political Process. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
Gallup, George, Jr., and Frank Newport .1990. "Americans Back Bush on Flag-burning Amendment." Gallup Poll Monthly, June pp. 2-4.
14.
Green, Justin J., John R. Schmidhauser, Larry L. Berg, and David Brady.1973. "Lawyers in Congress: A New Look at Some Old Assumptions ." Western Political Quarterly26: 440-52.
15.
Henschen, Beth. 1983. "Statutory Interpretations of the Supreme Court: Congressional Response ." American Politics Quarterly11: 441-58.
16.
Henschen, Beth M., and Edward I. Sidlow .1989. "The Supreme Court and the Congressional Agenda-Setting Process." Journal of Law and Politics5: 685-724.
17.
Ignagni, Joseph, and James Meernik.1994. "Explaining Congressional Attempts to Reverse Supreme Court Decisions." Political Research Quarterly47: 353-71.
18.
Kingdon, John W1981. Congressmen's Voting Decisions, 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row .
19.
Lascher, Edward L., Jr., Steven Kelman, and Thomas J. Kane.1993. "Policy Views, Constituency Pressure, and Congressional Action on Flag Burning." Public Choice76: 79-102.
20.
Marshall, Thomas R.1989. "Policymaking and the Modern Court: When Do Supreme Court Rulings Prevail?" Western Political Quarterly42: 493-507.
21.
Mayhew, David R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
22.
McClosky, Herbert, and Alida Brill.1983. Dimensions of Tolerance: What Americans Believe about Civil Liberties. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
23.
Miller, Mark C.1992. "Congressional Committees and the Federal Courts: A Neo-Institutional Perspective." Western Political Quarterly45: 949-70.
. 1993b. "Lawyers in Congress: What Difference Does It Make?" Congress and the Presidency20: 1-23.
26.
Murphy, Walter F.1962. Congress and the Court. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
27.
Norpoth, Helmut.1976. "Explaining Party Cohesion in Congress: The Case of Shared Policy Attitudes." American Political Science Review70: 1156-71.
28.
O'Brien, David M.1993. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics , 3rd ed. New York: Norton .
29.
Oregon v. Mitchell. 1970. 400 U.S. 122.
30.
Poole, Keith T., and R. Steven Daniels .1985. "Ideology, Party, and Voting in the U.S. Congress, 1959-1980." American Political Science Review79: 373-99.
31.
Pritchett, C. Herman.1961. Congress versus the Supreme Court. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
32.
Shipan, Charles R.1992. "Individual Incentives and Institutional Imperatives: Committee Jurisdiction and Long-Term Health Care." American Journal of Political Science36: 877-95.
33.
Smith, Steven S.1981. "The Consistency and Ideological Structure of U.S. Senate Voting Alignments, 1957-1976." American Journal of Political Science25: 780-95.
34.
Sullivan, John S., Amy Fried, and Mary Dietz.1992. "Patriotism, Politics, and the Presidential Election of 1988." American Journal of Political Science36: 200-234.
35.
Taylor, R.Neil Iii.1990. "The Protection of Flag Burning as Symbolic Speech and the Congressional Attempt to Overturn the Decision." University of Cincinnati Law Review58: 1477-1508.
