Ideology, Role Orientations, and Behavior in the State Courts of Last Resort

Abstract

Judicial role theory holds that variance in judges' perceptions of their decisional roles is related to variance in decision making indirectly, by determining the degree to which judges permit their political attitudes and policy preferences to influence their votes. Judicial "activists" are thus presumed to be more overtly ideological in their decisions than "restraintists." This study tests judicial role theory against attitudinal and behavioral data for a national sample of state supreme court justices. As hypothesized, judicial activists are shown to be more ideological than their restraintist counterparts. The findings suggest that judicial role orientation is an important element of any comprehensive theory of judicial behavior.