Journal Articles

Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conflict:A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts

---

According to attitudinal theorists, justices on the U.S. Supreme Court decide cases largely on political preferences that fall within one dimension of ideology. The focus of this study is to test whether a unidimensional ideological model explains the voting behavior of Canadian Supreme Court justices (1992—1997). The factor-analytic results in three areas of law, two of which have never been examined in this way in Canada, provide substantial evidence of ideological voting. Yet unlike the U.S. justices of the Rehnquist court, Canadian justices exhibit a much higher degree of ideological complexity. These findings call into question the widely held assumption of unidimensional decision making that is in vogue in the U.S. literature today, and they suggest that attitudinal theorists and comparative scholars must be cognizant that multiple dimensions of attitudinal voting might occur in high courts that are not as ideologically polarized as the U.S. Supreme Court.

---

Availability

No copy data

Detail Information

Series Title

Comparative Political Studies

Call Number

-

Publisher

Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publication., 2009

Collation

-

Language

English

ISBN/ISSN

0010-4140

Classification

-

Content Type

-

Media Type

-

Carrier Type

-

Edition

Volume 42, Number 6, June 2009. pp. 763-792

Subject(s)

Supreme court
Comparative law
Juducial Ideology
Factor Analysis
Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conf lict

Specific Detail Info

-

Statement of Responsibility

-

Other version/related

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment