Judicial role theory holds that variance in judges' perceptions of their decisional roles is related to variance in decision making indirectly, by determining the degree to which judges permit their political attitudes and policy preferences to influence their votes. Judicial "activists" are thus presumed to be more overtly ideological in their decisions than "restraintists." This study tests judicial role theory against attitudinal and behavioral data for a national sample of state supreme court justices. As hypothesized, judicial activists are shown to be more ideological than their restraintist counterparts. The findings suggest that judicial role orientation is an important element of any comprehensive theory of judicial behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, Theodore L.1965. Political behavioralism and modern jurisprudence. Chicago: Rand McNally.
2.
—. 1966. A survey study of Hawaiian judges: The effect on decisions of judicial role variations. American Political Science Review60:677-80.
3.
Flango, Victor E., Lettie McSpadden Wenner, and Manfred W. Wenner.1975. The concept of judicial role: A methodological note. American Journal of Political Science19:277-89.
4.
Galanter, Marc, Frank S. Palen, and John M. Thomas.1979. The crusading judge: Judicial activism in trial courts. Southern California Law Review52:699-741.
5.
Gibson, James L.1977. Discriminant functions, role orientations and judicial behavior: Theoretical and methodological linkages. Journal of Politics39:984-1007.
6.
—. 1978. Judges'role orientations, attitudes and decisions: An interactive model.American Political Science Review72:911-24.
7.
—. 1981. The role concept in judicial research. Law and Policy Quarterly3:291-311.
8.
—. 1983. From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior. Political Behavior5:7-49.
9.
Glick, Henry R.1971. Supreme courts in state politics: An investigation of the judicial role. New York: Basic Books.
10.
Glick, Henry R., and Kenneth N. Vines.1969. Law-making in the state judiciary: A comparative study of the judicial role in four states. Polity2:142-59.
11.
Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. 1977. Role perceptions and behavior in three U.S. courts of appeals. Journal of Politics39:916-38.
12.
—. 1981. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the Second Fifth and District of Columbia circuits. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
James, Dorothy B.1968. Role theory and the Supreme Court. Journal of Politics30:160-86.
14.
Jaros, Dean, and Robert Mendelsohn .1977. The judicial role and sentencing behavior. Midwest Journal of Political Science11:471-88.
15.
Scheb, John M. II and Thomas D. Ungs.1987. Competing orientations to the judicial role: The case of Tennessee judges. Tennessee Law Review54:391-411.
16.
Scheb, John M. II, Thomas D. Ungs, and Allison L. Hayes.1989. Judicial role orientations, attitudes and decision making: A research note. Western Political Quarterly42:427-35.
17.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover.1989. Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review83:557-65.
18.
Spaeth, Harold.1964. The judicial restraint of Mr. Justice Frankfurter: Myth or reality? Midwest Journal of Political Science5:165-80.
19.
Spaeth, Harold, and Stuart H. Teger.1982. Activism and restraint: A cloak for the justices policy preferences. In Supreme Court activism and restraint, edited by Stephen C. Halpern and Charles H. Lamb, 277-301. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
20.
Ungs, Thomas D., and Larry R. Bass.1972. Judicial role perceptions: A Q-technique study of Ohio judges. Law and Society Review6:343-66.
21.
Vines, Kenneth N.1969. The judicial role in the American states: An exploration . In Frontiers of judicial research, edited by Joel Grossman and Joseph Tannenhaus, 461-85. New York: Wiley.
22.
Wold, John T.1974. Political orientations, social backgrounds and role perceptions of state supreme court judges. Western Political Quarterly27:239-48.
