ENDNOTES A49
- Savage, Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, p. 848.
- See Thomas G. Walker and Lee Epstein, The Supreme Court
of the United States: An Introduction (New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1993), pp. 80–85, for a more detailed discussion of these
concepts and citations to the relevant court cases.
- Shaw v. Reno (1993) 509 U.S. 630.
- Elk Grove Unifi ed School District v. Newdow (2004) 542
U.S. 1.
- DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974).
- The appeals court case is Byrd v. Raines, and the case that was
fi nally heard by the Court was Clinton v. City of New York, 524
U.S. 417 (1998).
- Gregory A. Caldeira and John R. Wright, “The Discuss List:
Agenda Building in the Supreme Court,” Law and Society
Review 24 (1990): 813.
- Walker and Epstein, Supreme Court, p. 89.
- U.S. Supreme Court, “The Court and Its Procedures,” www
.supremecourtus.gov/about/procedures.pdf (accessed 3/17/08).
- Lee Epstein, Jeff rey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas
G. Walker, The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions,
and Developments, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2003),
Table 7-25.
- Gregory A. Caldeira and John R. Wright, “Amicus Curiae
before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How
Much?” Journal of Politics 52 (August 1990): 803.
- Adam Liptak, “No Argument: Thomas Keeps Five Year
Silence,” New York Times, February 12, 2011, http://www.nytimes
.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html (accessed 1/18/12).
- Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).
- Walker and Epstein, Supreme Court, p. 110.
- Epstein and Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing Amer-
ica, p. 31.
- Forrest Maltzman and Paul J. Wahlbeck, “Strategic Consider-
ations and Vote Fluidity on the Burger Court,” American Jour-
nal of Political Science 90 (1996): 581–92; Maltzman, Spriggs,
and Wahlbeck, Crafting Law.
- Thomas M. Keck, The Most Activist Supreme Court in History:
The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 2004).
- Robert Dahl, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme
Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law 6
(1957): 279–95, is the classic work on this topic. More recent
work challenged Dahl’s methods but largely supports that idea
that the Court follows the will of the majority.
- Jeff rey A. Segal, Richard J. Timpone, and Robert M. Howard,
“Buyer Beware? Presidential Success through Supreme Court
Appointments,” Political Research Quarterly 53:3 (September
2000): 557–73; Gregory A. Caldeira and Charles E. Smith Jr.,
“Campaigning for the Supreme Court: The Dynamics of Pub-
lic Opinion on the Thomas Nomination,” Political Research
Quarterly 58:3 (August 1996): 655–81.
- William Mishler and Reginald S. Sheehan, “The Supreme
Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of
Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions,” American Polit-
ical Science Review 87:1 (March 1993): 87–101.
“Supreme Court Blocks Huge Class-Action Suit against Wal-
Mart,” Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2011).
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
- U.S. Courts, Federal Court Management Statistics, 2007: Dis-
trict Courts, http://www.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/cmsd2007.pl (accessed
3/18/08).
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007).
- American Judicature Society, “Judicial Selection in the States:
Appellate and General Jurisdiction Courts,” 2004, http://www.ajs
.org/js/JudicialSelectionCharts_old.pdf (accessed 9/14/06).
- The Court ruled that the losing party’s due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated when
the justice who benefi ted from the campaign spending did not
recuse himself from the case. Given the disproportionate and
signifi cant spending by Massey and the timing of the spend-
ing, the majority ruled, “On these extreme facts the probabil-
ity of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level.”Caperton v.
A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).
- Paul Brace and Brent D. Boyea, “State Public Opinion, the
Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges,” American
Journal of Political Science 52:2 (April 2008): 360-72.
- Richard P. Caldarone, Brandice Canes-Wrone, and Tom S.
Clark, “Partisan Labels and Democratic Accountability: An
Analysis of State Supreme Court Abortion Decisions,” Journal
of Politics 71 (2009): 560–73
- Stephen Ware, “The Missouri Plan in National Perspective,”
Missouri Law Review 74 (2009): 751–75.
- “President Bush Discusses Judicial Accomplishments and
Philosophy,” Cincinnati, Ohio, October 6, 2008, georgewbush
-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/
20081006-5.html (accessed 12/14/11).
- Felicia Sonmez, “Senate Republicans Block Obama Appeals
Court Nominee,” Washington Post, December 6, 2011, p. A1.
See http://judicialnominations.org for a comprehensive list of
pending nominations and vacancies for federal courts.
- John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court, “2007 Year-End Report on
the Federal Judiciary,” January 1, 2008, http://www.supremecourtus
.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2007year-endreport.pdf (accessed
3/17/08).
- For a critical account of the Supreme Court’s reduced case
load, which dates back to the Rehnquist Court, see Philip
Allen Lacovara, “The Incredible Shrinking Court,” American
Lawyer, December 1, 2003, http://www.judicialaccountability.org/
download/shrinkinusgcourt.htm (accessed 7/18/08).
- New Jersey v. New York, No. 120 Orig., 118 S. Ct. 1726 (1998),
and Kansas v. Colorado, No. 105 Orig., 125 S. Ct. 526 (2004).
- Abraham, The Judiciary, p. 25, says that original jurisdiction
has been invoked “about 150 times.” A Lexis search revealed
an additional 27 original jurisdiction cases between 1987
and December 2004. See U.S. Department of Justice, Help/
Glossary, http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/help.html for a basic dis-
cussion of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
- Amanda L. Tyler, “Setting the Supreme Court’s Agenda: Is
There a Place for Certifi cation?” George Washington Law
Review Arguendo 78 (May 2010): 101–18.
