The Reality of Jurisprudence(?): Interpretive Methods in the Opinions of Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer

REFERENCES

• Badinter, Robert, and JusticeStephen Breyer. 2004. Judges in Contemporary Democracy: An International Conversation. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, MichaelA., and Forrest Maltzman. 2011. The Constrained Court: Law, Politics, and the Decisions Justices Make. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, BrandonL. 2009. “The Constraining Capacity of Legal Doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 103(3): 474–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benesh, SaraC., and JasonJ. Czarnezki. 2009. “The Ideology of Legal Interpretation.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29: 113–32.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatia, Kedar. 2013. “Final October Term 2012 Stat Pack.” SCOTUSblog, June 26.
   Google Scholar
• Bork, Robert. 2006. “Enforcing a ‘Mood.’” New Criterion 25(6): 63–7.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, Jr., WilliamJ. 1986. “The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification.” South Texas Law Review 27: 443–5.
   Google Scholar
• Breyer, JusticeStephen G. 2005a. Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. New York: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Breyer, JusticeStephen G. 2005b. “Conversation: Justice Breyer.” News Hour with Jim Lehrer. 19 October 2005. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/breyer_10-19.html
   Google Scholar
• Breyer, JusticeStephen G. 2010. Making Our Democracy Work. New York: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Burton, StevenJ. 1992. Judging in Good Faith. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Jacob. 1960. “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, Paul. 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corley, PamelaC., Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward. 2013. The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, Frank. 2013. The Failed Promise of Originalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Czarnezki, JasonJ., and WilliamK. Ford. 2006. “The Phantom Philosophy? An Empirical Investigation of Legal Interpretation.” Maryland Law Review 65: 841–906.
   Google Scholar
• Ely, JohnHart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, Lee, AndrewD. Martin, KevinM. Quinn, and JeffreyA. Segal. 2007. “Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?” Northwestern University Law Review 101: 1483–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eskridge, WilliamN. 1998. “Textualism, The Unknown Ideal?” Michigan Law Review 96: 1509–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, Michael, and Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz. 2012. “Perpetuating the Myth of the Culture War Court? Issue Attention in Newspaper Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Nominations.” American Politics Research 40(6): 1026–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, Jerome. 1949. Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Coward McCann.
   Google Scholar
• Furgeson, JoshuaR., Linda Babcock, and PeterM. Shane. 2008. “Behind the Mask of Method: Political Orientation and Constitutional Interpretive Preferences.” Law and Human Behavior 32(6): 502–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gates, JohnB., and GlennA. Phelps. 1996. “Intentionalism in Constitutional Opinions.” Political Research Quarterly 49(2): 245–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhardt, MichaelJ. 2003. “Book Review: Judicial Decisionmaking: Attitudes about Attitudes: The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited.” Michigan Law Review 101: 1733–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gewirtz, Paul. 2006. “Review: The Pragmatic Passion of Stephen Breyer.” Yale Law Journal 115: 1675–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillman, Howard. 1992. The Constitution Besieged: The Rise & Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence. Durham: Duke University Press Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gillman, Howard. 2001. “What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the ‘Legal Model’ of Judicial Decision Making.” Law & Social Inquiry 26(2): 465–504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———Gillman, Howard, MarkA. Graber, and KeithE Whittington. 2013. American Constitutionalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, MarkA., and RonaldF. Wright. 2008. “Systematic Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions.” California Law Review 96(1): 63–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansford, ThomasG., and JamesF. Spriggs II. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, RobertM., and JeffreyA. Segal. 2002. “An Original Look at Originalism.” Law & Society Review 36: 113–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huffman, Max. 2006. “Review Essay: Using All Available Information: Stephen G. Breyer, Active Liberty: Interpreting our Democratic Constitution.” Review of Litigation 25: 501–28.
   Google Scholar
• Kannar, George. 1990. “Comment: The Constitutional Catechism of Antonin Scalia.” Yale Law Journal 99: 1297–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kersch, KenI. 2006. “Review: Justice Breyer's Mandarin Liberty.” University of Chicago Law Review 73: 759–822.
   Google Scholar
• Knowles, EricD., and PeterH. Ditto. 2012. “Preference, Principle, and Political Casuistry.” In Ideology, Psychology, and Law, edited by Jon Hanson, 341–79. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kritzer, HerbertM., and MarkJ. Richards. 2003. “Jurisprudential Regimes and Supreme Court Decisionmaking: The Lemon Regime and Establishment Clause Cases.” Law & Society Review 37(4): 827–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kritzer, HerbertM., and MarkJ. Richards. 2005. “The Influence of Law in the Supreme Court's Search-and-Seizure Jurisprudence.” American Politics Research 33(1): 33–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kritzer, HerbertM., and MarkJ. Richards. 2010. “Taking and Testing Jurisprudential Regimes Seriously: A Response to Lax and Rader.” Journal of Politics 72(2): 285–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maltzman, Forrest, JamesF. Spriggs, and PaulJ. Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nichol, Gene. 1999. “Essay: Justice Scalia and the Printz Case: The Trials of an Occasional Originalist.” University of Colorado Law Review 70: 953–73.
   Google Scholar
• Nix, RobertS. 1997. “Comment: Bennet v. Spear. Justice Scalia Oversees the Latest ‘Battle’ in the ‘War’ Between Property Rights and Environmentalism.” Temple Law Review 70: 745–82.
   Google Scholar
• Obama, Barack. 2010. “Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address
   Google Scholar
• Pacelle, RichardL., BrettW. Curry, and BryanW. Marshall. 2011. Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pang, Xun, Barry Friedman, AndrewD. Martin, and KevinM. Quinn. 2012. “Endogenous Jurisprudential Regimes.” Political Analysis 20(4): 417–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, GlennA., and JohnB. Gates. 1991. “The Myth of Jurisprudence: Interpretive Theory in the Constitutional Opinions of Justices Rehnquist and Brennan.” Santa Clara Law Review 31: 567–96.
   Google Scholar
• Plass, StephenA. 1995. “The Illusion and Allure of Textualism.” Villanova Law Review 40: 93–152.
   Google Scholar
• Posner, RichardA. 2012. “The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia.” New Republic. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/magazine/books-and-arts/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism#.
   Google Scholar
• Rehnquist, William. 1976. “The Notion of a Living Constitution.” Texas Law Review 54: 693–706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rehnquist, William. 1992. “Remarks on the Process of Judging.” Washington and Lee Law Review 49: 263–70.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, MarkJ., and HerbertM. Kritzer. 2002. “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 96(2): 305–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossum, RalphA. 2006. Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence: Text and Tradition. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scalia, Antonin. 1986. “Testimony of the Honorable Antonin Scalia, to Be U.S. Supreme Court Justice.” Senate Committee on the Judiciary: S. Hrg. 99–1064, August 5 and 6. . http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh99-1064/browse.html
   Google Scholar
• Scalia, Antonin. 1989. “Originalism: The Lesser Evil.” Cincinnati Law Review 57: 852–64. http://web.syr.edu/∼jrkarp/scalia.html.
   Google Scholar
• Scalia, Antonin. 1994. “The Dissenting Opinion.” Journal of Supreme Court History 19(1): 33–44.
   Google Scholar
• Scalia, Antonin. 1996. “A Theory of Constitution Interpretation.” Remarks at the Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. . October 18, 1996. http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/rights/scalia.html
   Google Scholar
• Scalia, Antonin. 1997. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. An Essay by Antonin Scalia with Commentary by Amy Gutmannet al.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scalia, Antonin. 2005. “Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way.” Speech delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2005. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/us_supreme_court/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm
   Google Scholar
• Scalia, Antonin, and Stephen Breyer. 2005. “Transcript of Discussion between U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer.” American University Washington College of Law, January 13. http://domino.american.edu/AU/media/mediarel.nsf/1D265343BDC2189785256B810071F238/1F2F7DC4757FD01E85256F890068E6E0?OpenDocument
   Google Scholar
• Scalia, Antonin, and BryanA. Garner. 2012. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan, MN: Thomson West. Kindle edition.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, DavidA., and ChristopherE. Smith. 1996. The Jurisprudential Vision of Justice Antonin Scalia. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, KevinM. 2006. “Reconsidering the Impact of Jurisprudential Regimes.” Social Science Quarterly 87(2): 380–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal, JeffreyA., and HaroldJ. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Segal, JeffreyA., and HaroldJ. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spaeth, HaroldJ. 1965. “Jurimetrics and Professor Mendelson: A Troubled Relationship.” Journal of Politics 27(4): 875–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaeth, HaroldJ., Sara Benesh, Lee Epstein, AndrewD. Martin, JeffreyA. Segal, and TheodoreJ. Ruger. 2013. Supreme Court Database, Version 2013 Release 01. http://supremecourtdatabase.org.
   Google Scholar
• Spaeth, HaroldJ., and JeffreyAllan Segal. 2001. Majority Rule, or, Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Talbot, Margaret. 2005. “Supreme Confidence: The Jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia.” New Yorker, March 28.
   Google Scholar
• Tamanaha, BrianZ. 1996. “The Internal/External Distinction and the Notion of ‘Practice’ in Legal Theory and Sociolegal Studies.” Law and Society Review 30(1): 163–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tribe, Laurence, and Joshua Matz. 2014. Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution. New York: Holt. Kindle edition.
   Google Scholar
• Whelan, Edward. 2005. “Supreme Confusion.” National Review Online, April 13. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/whelan200504130752.asp.
   Google Scholar
• Will, George. 2005. “Mr. Breyer's ‘Modesty.’” Newsweek. September 26. Available at http://www.newsweek.com/mr-breyers-modesty-118453.
   Google Scholar
• Zlotnick, DavidM. 1999. “Justice Scalia and His Critics: An Exploration of Scalia's Fidelity to his Constitutional Methodology.” Emory Law Journal 48: 1377–429.
   Google Scholar