The study of ideological polarization is an important topic in research ranging from behavioral-level to institutional studies of politics. Polarization, however, has received little attention in the context of the Supreme Court, even while popular press and legal commentary suggest ideological heterogeneity on the Court is consequential for the Court's policy outputs. In this article, I apply an axiomatic measure of polarization developed by Esteban and Ray (1994) to study ideological heterogeneity on the Court to develop a “polarization statistic.” I compare this method with other common polarization measures and provide evidence for the reliability of the measure.
Bond, Jon R., and Richard Fleisher, eds. 2000. Polarized politics: Congress and the President in a partisan era. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
3.
Brenner, Saul, Timothy M. Hagle, and Harold J. Spaeth .1990. Increasing the size of minimum winning coalitions on the Warren Court. Polity23 (3): 309-18.
4.
Dean, John W.2002. The Rehnquist choice: The untold story of the Nixon appointment that redefined the Supreme Court. New York: Free Press.
5.
Duclos, Jean-Yves, Joan Esteban, and Debraj Ray.2004. Polarization: Concepts, measurement, estimation. Econometrica72 (6): 1737-72.
6.
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight.1998. The choices Justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
7.
Epstein, Lee, Andrew D.Martin, JeffreyA. Segal, and Chad Westerland .2007. The Judicial Common Space. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization23 (2): 303-25.
8.
Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth, and Thomas G. Walker .2007. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions & Developments. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
9.
Esteban, Joan, and Debraj Ray.1999. Conflict and distribution. Journal of Economic Theory87 (2): 397-415.
10.
Esteban, Joan, and Debraj Ray.1994. On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica62 (4): 819-51.
11.
Fiorina, Morris P., Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope.2006. Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Longman.
12.
Gennaioli, Nicola, and Andrei Shleifer .2007. The evolution of common law . Journal of Political Economy115 (1): 43-68.
13.
Gillman, Howard.1999. The Court as an idea, not a building (or a game): Interpretive institutionalism and the analysis of Supreme Court decision-making. In Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalista, ed. Cornell W.Clayton and Howard Gillman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
14.
Gillman, Howard.2001. What's law got to do with it? Judicial behavioralists test the "legal model" of judicial decision making. Law & Social Inquiry25 (2): 465-504.
15.
Greenberg, Stanley B.2004. The two Americas: Our current political divide and how to break it. New York: St. Martin 's.
16.
Hammond, Thomas H., Chris W. Bonneau, and Reginald S. Sheehan .2005. Strategic behavior and policy choice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
Hetherington, Marc J.2001. Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization . American Political Science Review95 (3): 619-31.
18.
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Charles M. Cameron .2007. Bargaining and opinion assignment on the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization23 (2): 276-302.
19.
Layman, Geoffrey, and Thomas M. Carsey .2002. Party polarization and "conflict extension" in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science46 (4): 786-802.
20.
Lazarus, Edward.1998. Closed chambers: The first eyewitness account of the epic struggles inside the Supreme Court. New York: Times Books.
21.
Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs, II, and Paul J. Wahlbeck.2000. Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn .2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis10 (1): 134-53.
23.
McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal .2006. Polarized America: The dance of political ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
24.
Myers, Charles D.2007. Campaign intensity and polarization. Princeton University working paper.
25.
Pritchett, C. Herman.1948. The Roosevelt Court: A study in judicial politics and values, 1937-1947. New York: Macmillan Co.
26.
Rhode, David W.1972. Policy goals and opinion coalitions in the Supreme Court . Midwest Journal of Political Science16 (2): 208-24.
27.
Rosen, Jeffrey.2007. The Supreme Court: The personalities and rivalries that defined America. New York: Times Books.
28.
Schlesinger, Joseph A.1985. The new American political party. American Political Science Review79 (4): 1155-69.
29.
Schubert, Glendon.1964. The judicial mind: Attitudes and ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946-1963. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Schwartz, Edward P.1992. Policy, precedent, and power: A positive theory of Supreme Court decision-making. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization8 (2): 219-52.
32.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover .1989. Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review83 (2): 557-65.
33.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth .2002. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Staudt, Nancy,Barry Friedman, and Lee Epstein . Forthcoming. On the role of ideological homogeneity in generating consequential constitutional decisions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
35.
Ulmer, S. Sidney.1965. Toward a theory of sub-group formation in the United States Supreme Court. Journal of Politics27 (1): 133-52.
36.
Whittington, Keith E.2000. Once more unto the breach: Postbehavioralist approaches to judicial politics. Law & Social Inquiry25 (2): 601-34.
