Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Measuring Judicial Activism$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Stefanie A. Lindquist and Frank B. Cross

Print publication date: 2009

Print ISBN-13: 9780195370850

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2009

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195370850.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 24 August 2019

Identifying Judicial Activism

Identifying Judicial Activism

Chapter:
(p.29) two Identifying Judicial Activism
Source:
Measuring Judicial Activism
Author(s):

Stefanie A. Lindquist

Frank B. Cross (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195370850.003.0002

To assess judicial activism empirically, this chapter looks more explicitly at the potential for dimensions of judicial activism to be identified and measured. Because the exercise of judicial review is so important to the debate over activist judging, the chapter begins its analysis by identifying the justices' willingness to strike state and federal legislation as a critical element to the concept of judicial activism. It also suggests that invalidating the choices made by executive agencies also constitutes a dimension to judicial activism given the electoral connection to the President. In addition, institutional aggrandizement by the judiciary—by expanding access to the judiciary via doctrines of justiciability (standing, mootness and the like) and invalidating existing precedent—are also identified as dimensions to activist decision making. Finally, the chapter concludes, to distinguish activist from “principled” decision making, that these dimensions must be evaluated in light of the justices' willingness to vote in furtherance of their own ideologies. Thus, the chapter identifies two basic dimensions to judicial activism: institutional activism (reflecting the justices' willingness to vote to strike legislation, etc.) and ideological activism (reflecting their willingness to do so in accordance with their personal policy preferences). The chapter also identifies the data sources (the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database) for the project, and the empirical/statistical approach the book will employ.

Keywords:   ideology, deference, institutional aggrandizement, judicial policy preferences, result-oriented judging, U.S. Supreme Court Database

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .