Toward an understanding of Supreme Court decisionmaking

This dissertation surveys the contours of the debate surrounding Supreme Court decision making. Here, the effect of the law, in particular the doctrine of stare decisis, is the subject of great controversy. This research contends that the Supreme Court decision making cannot be viewed only through the lens of the attitudinal dispositions of the justices. I question the foundations of the debate, which wrongly disassociates the attitudinal dispositions of Supreme Court justices from the interpretation of the doctrine of stare decisis. This artificial dichotomy originates in the behaviorialist study of Supreme Court decision making and its perpetuation undermines advances in future research. Our understanding of judicial decision making must include knowledge of the factors that distinguishes jurisprudence from other types of decisionmaking processes: the doctrine of stare decisis. The explanation of the role of the doctrine of stare decisis in judicial decision making requires a reconsideration of its basic tenets. Rather than the static and inflexible tools of an attitudinal assessment, it is necessary to grasp the interpretive norms compelled by precedential rules, legal issues and doctrinal considerations. Gaining familiarity with the interpretive norms associated with the doctrine of stare decisis in Supreme Court decision making requires a pragmatic and practical understanding of it use. It is necessary to develop an understanding of how justices, judges, and lawyers perceive the doctrine of stare decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis is a constraint on the play of preferences or strategic choices because it is viewed as an institutionalized and legitimate element of the practice of judicial decision making by those captured in the process. Herein resides the power of the doctrine of stare decisis. The importance of the intent of the framers the doctrine of stare decisis, and precedent in constraining judicial behavior resides in their power as recognizable rules or norms which society and the institution recognize as legitimate.