Model
Digital Document
Publisher
Florida Atlantic University
Description
This article examines the treatment of empirical research data by conservative Supreme
Court Justices. Supreme Court case decisions have throughout the 20th and 21st centuries cited
social science research that contribute to judicial decision making, with conservative justices
often showing a pattern of skepticism justices towards social science research. 21 case rulings
are examined to see how the conservative justices on the Supreme Court under Chief Justice
John Roberts treat empirical evidence in their decision-making. The treatment of evidence
presented by the U.S. Government or Congress in considering the constitutionality of legislation
is also examined. Analyzing the opinions found that the conservative justices tend to be skeptical
of social science research and often criticize its use by liberal justices, but will cite data
depending on the framing of the issue and their view on the reliability of the evidence. The
opinions also suggest that while the conservative justices may cite empirical evidence in majority
and dissent opinions such evidence does not take precedence over legal and ideologically
influenced decision-making.
Court Justices. Supreme Court case decisions have throughout the 20th and 21st centuries cited
social science research that contribute to judicial decision making, with conservative justices
often showing a pattern of skepticism justices towards social science research. 21 case rulings
are examined to see how the conservative justices on the Supreme Court under Chief Justice
John Roberts treat empirical evidence in their decision-making. The treatment of evidence
presented by the U.S. Government or Congress in considering the constitutionality of legislation
is also examined. Analyzing the opinions found that the conservative justices tend to be skeptical
of social science research and often criticize its use by liberal justices, but will cite data
depending on the framing of the issue and their view on the reliability of the evidence. The
opinions also suggest that while the conservative justices may cite empirical evidence in majority
and dissent opinions such evidence does not take precedence over legal and ideologically
influenced decision-making.
Member of