The Paradox of Paternalism and Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism: United States Supreme Court, 1888-1921

The Median Justice on the United States Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, 1888-1940: An Empirical Overview

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your perso...

Laissez-faire versus Pareto∗

Consider two principles for social evaluation. The first, ‘laissez-faire’, says that mean-preserving redistribution away from laissez-faire incomes should be regarded as a social worsening. This principle captures a key aspect of liberal political philosophy. The second, weak Pareto, states that an increase in each individual’s disposable income should be regarded as a social improvement. We sh...

Peer Effects on the United States Supreme Court

Using data on essentially every US Supreme Court decision since 1946, we estimate a model of peer effects on the Court. We consider both the impact of justice ideology and justice votes on the votes of their peers. To identify these peer effects we use two instruments. The first is based on the composition of the Court, determined by which justices sit on which cases due to recusals or health r...

Confirmation Bias in the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database

We ask whether the widely used direction of decision and direction of vote variables in the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database (USSCJD) are contaminated by confirmation bias, or have been affected by expectations about the likely effects of judicial preferences on case outcomes. Using a sample of generally comparable cases, we find evidence that the assignment of issue codes to these...