Stare Indecisis
The Alteration of Precedent on the Supreme Court, 1946–1992

This book presents a full-length empirical study of why US Supreme Court justices have chosen to alter precedent.

Saul Brenner (Author), Harold J. Spaeth (Author)

9780521451888, Cambridge University Press

Hardback, published 28 April 1995

168 pages, 40 b/w illus.
23.7 x 15.8 x 1.6 cm, 0.375 kg

"...it is a delight to read. The writing is lucid, lively, and few words are wasted conveying a lot of interesting information. ...this work will be an indispensable aid... ...will prove to be a valuable resource for innumerable projects. The method employed by Brenner and Spaeth convincingly overcomes the shortcomings of prior studies and results in the production of a list of cases for analysis that will be accepted as the standard for future analyses." The Law and Politics Book Review

Although the concept of precedent is basic to the operation of the legal system, there has not yet been a full-length empirical study of why US Supreme Court justices have chosen to alter precedent. This book attempts to fill this gap by analyzing those decisions of the Vinson, Warren, and Burgers courts, as well as the first six terms of the Rehnquist Court - a span of 47 years (1946–1992) - which formally altered precedent. The authors summarize previous studies of precedent and the Court, assess the conference voting of justices, and compile a list of overruling and overruled cases. Additionally, the authors draw a distinction between personal and instituional stare decisis. By using the attitudinal model of Supreme Court decision making, the authors find that it is the individual justices' ideologies which explain their voting behavior.

1. Preface
2. A survey of the empirical literature
3. A list of cases
4. Some characteristics of the overruling and the overruled cases
5. The conference votes
6. Attitudinal voting
7. Personal and institutional stare decisis
8. Ideology
9. Conclusion
Appendices.

Subject Areas: Constitution: government & the state [JPHC]