Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:03:32.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Have We Come a Long Way, Baby? The Influence of Attorney Gender on Supreme Court Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2010

John J. Szmer ,
Tammy A. Sarver  and
Erin B. Kaheny
John J. Szmer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Tammy A. Sarver
Affiliation:
Benedictine University
Erin B. Kaheny
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While the impact of an attorney's sex has been examined with respect to trial court processes (e.g., jury decision making), no one has previously studied its effects on appellate court decision making. In this article, we argue that the application of gender schemas by some justices results in a devaluing of the arguments made by women litigators. Our findings suggest that women orally arguing attorneys are less likely to receive a favorable vote by a justice than are the male counsel they oppose and that conservative justices are more likely than their liberal counterparts to vote against litigants represented by female counsel at oral argument. This suggests that the ideology of elites influences whether they apply gender schemas in a negative fashion. We also find that justices are more likely to side with female lawyers in women's issues cases, indicating that the justices' perceptions of female lawyer expertise are enhanced in those cases. These findings persist even after controlling for multiple factors, including attorney expertise, the sex of the justice, amicus participation, party capability, and judicial ideology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 1 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

ABA (American Bar Association) Commission on Women in the Profession. 2001. The Unfinished Agenda: Women and the Legal Profession. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1–48.Google Scholar
Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward C.. 2003. “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models.” Economic Letters 80 (1): 123–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, David W., and Wall, Diane E.. 1993. “Role Orientations and Women State Supreme Court Justices.” Judicature 77 (3): 156–65.Google Scholar
Baird, Vanessa. 2004. “The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda.” Journal of Politics 66 (3): 755–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biernat, Monica, Manis, Melvin, and Nelson, Thomas E.. 1991. “Stereotypes and Standards of Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1): 48–59.Google Scholar
Bogoch, Bryna. 1997. “Gendered Lawyering: Difference and Dominance in Lawyer-Client Interaction.” Law and Society Review 31 (4): 677–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Epstein, Lee, and Martin, Andrew D.. 2007. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” Presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Dore, and Geis, Florence L.. 1990. “Nonverbal Affect Responses to Male and Female Leaders: Implications for Leadership Evaluations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1): 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahn, Naomi. 1991. “Defining Feminist Litigation.” Harvard Women's Law Journal 14 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Clydesdale, Timothy T. 2004. “A Forked River Runs Through Law School: Toward Understanding Race, Gender, Age, and Related Gaps in Law School Performance and Bar Passage.” Law and Social Inquiry 29 (3): 711–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, David L., and Peterson, John L.. 1981. “Bias in the Courtroom: Race and Sex Effects of Attorneys on Juror Verdicts.” Social Behavior and Personality 9 (1): 81–87.Google Scholar
Colker, Ruth. 1990. “Feminist Litigation: An Oxymoron?: A Study of the Briefs Filed in William L. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.” Harvard Women's Law Journal 13 (1): 137–88.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. 2004. “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Law and Society Review 38 (4): 807–32.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M.. 2008. Friends of the Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Todd, and Moyer, Laura. 2008. “Gender, Race, and Intersectionality on the Federal Appellate Bench.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. 1984. “How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 95–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela. 2008. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties' Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 61(3): 468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Sue, Haire, Susan, and Songer, Donald R.. 1993. “Voting Behavior and Gender on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Judicature 77 (3): 129–33.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., Sokhey, Anand E., and Gilbert, Christopher P.. 2007. “Present but Not Accounted For? Gender Differences in Civic Resource Acquisition.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 906–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 1998. “Voting for Women in the ‘Year of the Woman.’” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 272–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2004a. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2004b. “The Impact of Candidate Sex on Evaluations of Candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.” Social Science Quarterly 85 (1): 206–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs, Robert Saute, Bonnie Oglensky, and Gever, Martha. 1995. “Glass Ceilings and Open Doors: Women's Advancement in the Legal Profession.” Fordham Law Review 64 (2): 306–449.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1999. “Mapping out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amici Curiae.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, ed. Clayton, Cornell W. and Gillman, Howard. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Mershon, Carol. 1996. “Measuring Political Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 261–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66–83.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. 1999. “Introduction to Women and the Law: Facing the Millennium.” Indiana Law Review 32 (4): 1161–65.Google Scholar
Gruhl, John, Spohn, Cassia, and Welch, Susan. 1981. “Women as Policy Makers: The Case of Trial Judges.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (2): 308–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gryski, Gerard, Main, Eleanor C., and Dixon, William J.. 1986. “Models of State High Court Decision Making in Sex Discrimination Cases.” Journal of Politics 48 (1): 143–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guinier, Lani, Michelle Fine, Jane Balin, Bartow, Ann, and Stachel, Deborah Lee. 1994. “Becoming Gentleman: Women's Experiences at One Ivy League Law School.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 143 (1): 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Peter W., and Clayton, Susan D.. 1996. “The Effects of Attorney Presentation Style, Attorney Gender, and Juror Gender on Juror Decisions.” Law and Human Behavior 20 (5): 533–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haire, Susan Brodie, Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Hartley, Roger. 1999. “Attorney Expertise, Litigant Success, and Judicial Decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Law and Society Review 33 (3): 667–85.Google Scholar
Haire, Susan B., and Moyer, Laura P.. 2008. “Advocacy through Briefs in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Southern Illinois University Law Journal 32 (3): 593–609.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Bonneau, Chris W.. 2006. “Does Quality Matter? Challengers in State Supreme Court Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 20–33.Google Scholar
Harris, Angela P. 1990. “Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory.” Stanford Law Review 42 (3): 581–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslett, Beth, Geis, Florence L., and Carter, Mae R.. 1992. The Organizational Woman: Power and Paradox. Norwood: NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L., and Sill, Kaitlyn L.. 2007. “Experienced Advocates and Litigation Outcomes: Repeat Players in the South African Supreme Court of Appeal.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (3): 443–53.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47 (1): 153–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, Stuart, and Pryor, Burt. 1984. “Sex Discrimination in the Courtroom: Attorney's Gender and Credibility.” Psychological Reports 55 (2): 483–86.Google Scholar
Howell, Susan E., and Day, Christine L.. 2000. “Complexities of the Gender Gap.” Journal of Politics 62 (3): 858–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddie, Leonie, and Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 1995. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janoff, Sandra. 1991. “The Influence of Legal Education on Moral Reasoning.” Minnesota Law Review 76 (1): 193–238.Google Scholar
Johnson, Stephen D. 1985. “Religion as a Defense in a Mock-Jury Trial.” Journal of Social Psychology 125 (2): 213–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R. 2001. “Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Politics Research 29 (4): 331–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R. 2004. Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Wahlbeck, Paul J., and Spriggs, James F. II. 2006. “The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1992. “Does Being Male Help: An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and Campaign Coverage on Evaluations of U.S. Senate Candidates.” Journal of Politics 54 (2): 497–517.Google Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Karst, Kenneth L. 2003. “Constitutional Equality as a Cultural Form: The Courts and the Meanings of Sex and Gender.” Wake Forest Law Review 38 (2): 513–45.Google Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey W. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates' Ideological Orientations?” Journal of Politics 62 (2): 414–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornhauser, Marjorie E. 2004. “Rooms of Their Own: An Empirical Study of Occupational Segregation by Gender among Law Professors.” University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 73 (1): 293–348.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M., and Uhlman, Thomas M.. 1977. “Sisterhood in the Courtroom: Sex of Judge and Defendant in Criminal Case Disposition.” Social Science Journal 14 (2): 77–88.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post-September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 479–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Solberg, Rorie Spill. 2007. “Judicial Review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts: Explaining Justices' Responses to Constitutional Challenges.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 71–90.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J., 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manning, Kenneth L., Carp, Robert A., and Collins, Paul M. Jr. 2007. “Gender and Decision-Making in the Federal Courts: Testing the Critical Mass Theory.” Typescript. On file with the authors.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10: 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2005. “Can Ideal Point Estimates Be Used as Explanatory Variables?” Typescript. Available at http://mqscores.wustl.edu/media/resnote.pdf. (Date Accessed 12/21/09).Google Scholar
Matland, Richard E. 1994. “Putting Scandinavian Equality to the Test: An Experimental Evaluation of Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates in a Sample of Norwegian Voters.” British Journal of Political Science 24 (2): 273–92.Google Scholar
Mattei, Laura R. Winsky. 1998. “Gender and Power in American Legislative Discourse.” Journal of Politics 60 (2): 440–61.Google Scholar
McAtee, Andrea, and McGuire, Kevin T.. 2007. “Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court.” Law and Society Review 41 (2): 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1993. “Lawyers and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Washington Community and Legal Elites.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 365–90.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” Journal of Politics 57 (1): 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 2000. “Lobbyists, Revolving Doors and the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Politics 16 (1): 113–37.Google Scholar
McGuire, Mary V., and Bermant, Gordon. 1977. “Individual and Group Decisions in Response to a Mock Trial: A Methodological Note.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 3 (2): 220–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1985. “Portia in a Different Voice: Speculations on a Women's Lawyering Process.” Berkeley Women's Law Journal 1 (1): 39–63.Google Scholar
Nelson, Mary Stuart. 2004. “The Effect of Attorney Gender on Jury Perception and Decision-Making.” Law and Psychology Review 28 (1): 177–94.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E., and Ross, Lee. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Noonan, Mary C., and Corcoran, Mary E.. 2004. “The Mommy Track and Partnership: Temporary Delay or Dead End?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 596 (1): 130–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 1999. “The Evolution of the Gender Gap.” Public Opinion Quarterly 63 (4): 566–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, Edward C., Wang, Hua, and Ai, Chunrong. 2004. “Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit Models.” Stata Journal 4 (2): 154–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Order of the Coif. 1991. Directory of the Order of the Coif: 1902–1991. Los Angeles: The Order of the Coif.Google Scholar
Ostrow, Ellen. 2004. “How Gender Schemas Shape Women Lawyers' Lives.” The Complete Lawyer 1 (2). Available at http://www.lawyerslifecoach.com/articles/story_25.html. (Date Accessed 9/19/2008).Google Scholar
Palmer, Barbara, and Simon, Dennis. 2003. “Political Ambition and Women in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1916–2000.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (2): 127–38.Google Scholar
Peppers, Todd. 2006. Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Peresie, Jennifer L. 2005. “Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decisionmaking on the Federal Appellate Courts.” Yale Law Journal 114 (4): 1759–90.Google Scholar
Pierce, Jennifer L. 1995. Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Poggione, Sarah. 2004. “Exploring Gender Differences in State Legislators' Policy Preferences.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 305–14.Google Scholar
Porter, Natalie, and Geis, Florence L.. 1981. “When Seeing Is Not Believing: Women and Nonverbal Leadership Cues.” In Gender, Androgyny, and Nonverbal Behavior, ed. Mayo, C. and Henley, N.. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Radin, Margaret J. 1990. “The Pragmatist and the Feminist.” Southern California Law Review 63: 1699–1726.Google Scholar
Rhode, Deborah L. 2002. “What Needs Fixing?: Gender and the Profession.” Hofstra Law Review 30: 1001–13.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1998a. “Determinants of Collaborative Leadership: Civic Engagement, Gender or Organizational Norms?” Political Research Quarterly 51 (4): 847–68.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1998b. When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarver, Tammy A., Kaheny, Erin B., and Szmer, John J.. 2008. “The Attorney Gender Gap in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Judicature 91 (5): 238–50.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1990. “Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: The Effect of Presidential Appointments.” Western Political Quarterly 43 (1): 137–52.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D.. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Reedy, Cheryl D.. 1988. “The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General.” Western Political Quarterly 41 (3): 553–68.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jennifer. 2000. “Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench: Clinton's District Court Appointees.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (1): 137–50.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald, Mishler, William, and Songer, Donald R.. 1992. “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 86 (2): 464–71.Google Scholar
Sigal, Janet, Braden-Maguire, J., Hayden, M., and Mosley, N.. 1985. “The Effect of Presentation Style and Sex of Lawyer on Jury Decision-making Behavior.” Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior 22 (3/4): 13–19.Google Scholar
Slotnick, Elliott E. 1983. “Federal Trial and Appellate Judges: How Do They Differ?” Western Political Quarterly 36 (4): 570–78.Google Scholar
Smith, Eric R.A.N., and Fox, Richard L.. 2001. “The Electoral Fortunes of Women Candidates for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (1): 205–21.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Crews-Meyer, Kelley A.. 2000. “Does Judge Gender Matter? Decision Making in State Supreme Courts.” Social Science Quarterly 81 (3): 750–62.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Davis, Sue, and Haire, Susan. 1994. “A Reappraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Politics 56 (2): 425–39.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1992. “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (1): 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Sheehan, Reginald S., and Haire, Susan Brodie. 2003. “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925–1988.” In In Litigation: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? ed. Kritzer, Herbert M. and Silbey, Susan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 1998. “Are Women More Likely to Vote for Women's Issue Bills Than Their Male Colleagues?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (3): 435–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmer, John. 2005. Unequal Justice under Law?: The Effects of Party and Attorney Capability on United States Supreme Court Decision Making. Ph.D. diss., University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Szmer, John, Johnson, Susan W., and Sarver, Tammy A.. 2007. “Does the Lawyer Matter? Influencing Outcomes on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Law and Society Review 41 (2): 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Shelley E., and Crocker, Jennifer. 1981. “Schematic Bases of Social Information Processing.” In Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 1., ed. Higgins, E. Tory, Herman, C. Peter, and Zanna, Mark P.. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 89–134.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsujimoto, R. N. 1978. “Memory Bias Toward Normative and Novel Trait Prototypes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 1391–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valian, Virginia. 1999. “Roundtable: The Cognitive Bases of Gender Bias.” Brooklyn Law Review 65: 1037–61.Google Scholar
Valian, Virginia. 2005. Beyond Gender Schemas: Improving the Advancement of Women in Academia.” Hypatia 20 (3): 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villemur, Nora K., and Hyde, Janet Shibley. 1983. “Effects of Sex of Defense Attorney, Sex of Juror, and Age and Attractiveness of Victim on Mock Juror Decision Making in a Rape Case.” Sex Roles 9 (4): 879–89.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1997. “The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change.” Journal of Politics 59 (3): 778–802.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J., Spriggs, James F. II, and Sigelman, Lee. 2002. “Ghostwriters on the Court: A Stylistic Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Drafts.” American Politics Research 30 (2): 166–92.Google Scholar
Walker, Thomas G., and Barrow, Deborah J.. 1985. “The Diversification of the Federal Bench: Policy and Process Ramifications.” Journal of Politics 47 (3): 596–617.Google Scholar
Zorn, Christopher J. W., and Van Winkle, Steven R.. 2000. “A Competing Risks Model of Supreme Court Vacancies, 1789–1992. Political Behavior 22 (2): 145–66.Google Scholar