DOI: 10.1017/S0022381613000443
关键词: Supreme court 、 Law 、 Voracious appetite 、 Preference 、 Estimation 、 Court of record 、 Political science 、 Majority opinion
摘要: Court scholars have a voracious appetite for Supreme preference measures. Several articles question whether widely used Martin and Quinn (2002, 2011) scores provide valid intertemporal measures, calling into virtually an entire generation of quantitative research on the Court. This article discusses challenges estimation revises, updates, extends Bailey Maltzman (2011) to present estimates that are more defensibly comparable across time institutions.