Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Generate between 5-10 hypotheses (dependent variable : liberal or conservative​ for your justice (An | acewriters
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

1.Generate between 5-10 hypotheses (dependent variable : liberal or conservative for your justice (Antonin Scalia)2. Connect your hypotheses with the data by identifying where and how those variables are located
in the Supreme Court Database. My hypothesis are attached note from the professor : You need additional hypotheses beyond issue areas. The hypotheses that you’ve identified are overly broad especially with respect to privacy and unions. What is the reasoning behind federalism, judicial power, and economic activity? I strongly recommend you get more specific and targeted with each of these issue areas and also think about how his academic background might be used to form a hypothesis or two.Characteristics of a good hypothesis:Theoretically grounded and based on literatureSpecifies the relationship between two (or more) variables o Predicts one (or more) causal factors will produce a single effectMakes a testable comparison using empirical data Examples of good hypotheses for Justice Clark I attached the professor examples file, my hypothesis,supreme court database, and some helpful informationPlease read the teacher examples and provide me with better hypothesis
suprem_court_data.pdf

scalia_hypothi.docx

clark_biography___hypotheses.pdf

professor_example.pdf

xid_7601734_1.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

The Supreme Court Database Codebook
Supreme Court Database Code Book
brick_2017_01
CONTRIBUTORS
Harold Spaeth
Michigan State University College of Law
Lee Epstein
Washington University in Saint Louis
Ted Ruger
University of Pennsylvania School of Law
Sarah C. Benesh
University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee Department of Political Science
Jeffrey Segal
Stony Brook University Department of Political Science
Andrew D. Martin
University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts
Document Crafted On August 14, 2017 @ 03:37
1 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTORY
1
Introduction
2
Citing to the SCDB
IDENTIFICATION VARIABLES
3
SCDB Case ID
4
SCDB Docket ID
5
SCDB Issues ID
6
SCDB Vote ID
7
U.S. Reporter Citation
8
Supreme Court Citation
9
Lawyers Edition Citation
10
LEXIS Citation
11
Docket Number
BACKGROUND VARIABLES
2 of 132
12
Case Name
13
Petitioner
14
Petitioner State
15
Respondent
16
Respondent State
17
Manner in which the Court takes Jurisdiction
18
Administrative Action Preceeding Litigation
19
Administrative Action Preceeding Litigation State
20
Three-Judge District Court
21
Origin of Case
22
Origin of Case State
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
23
Source of Case
24
Source of Case State
25
Lower Court Disagreement
26
Reason for Granting Cert
27
Lower Court Disposition
28
Lower Court Disposition Direction
CHRONOLOGICAL VARIABLES
29
Date of Decision
30
Term of Court
31
Natural Court
32
Chief Justice
33
Date of Oral Argument
34
Date of Reargument
SUBSTANTIVE VARIABLES
35
Issue
36
Issue Area
37
Decision Direction
38
Decision Direction Dissent
39
Authority for Decision 1
40
Authority for Decision 2
41
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court
42
Legal Provision Supplement
43
Legal Provision Minor Supplement
OUTCOME VARIABLES
3 of 132
44
Decision Type
45
Declaration of Unconstitutionality
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
46
Disposition of Case
47
Unusual Disposition
48
Winning Party
49
Formal Alteration of Precedent
VOTING & OPINION VARIABLES
50
Vote Not Clearly Specified
51
Majority Opinion Writer
52
Majority Opinion Assigner
53
Split Vote
54
Majority Votes
55
Minority Votes
56
Justice ID
57
Justice Name
58
The Vote in the Case
59
Opinion
60
Direction of the Individual Justice’s Votes
61
Majority and Minority Voting by Justice
62
First Agreement
63
Second Agreement
APPENDICES / DATA NORMALIZATIONS
4 of 132
A1
varAdminAction
A2
varAuthorityDecision
A3
varCaseDispositionLc
A4
varCaseDispositionSc
A5
varCaseDispositionUnusual
A6
varCaseSources
A7
varCertReason
A8
varChiefs
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
A9
5 of 132
varDecisionDirection
A10
varDecisionDirectionDissent
A11
varDecisionTypes
A12
varDeclarationUncon
A13
varIssues
A14
varIssuesAreas
A15
varJurisdiction
A16
varJusticeDirection
A17
varJusticeMajority
A18
varJusticeOpinion
A19
varJustices
A20
varLawArea
A21
varLcDisagreement
A22
varLegalProvisions
A23
varNaturalCourt
A24
varParties
A25
varPartyWinning
A26
varPrecedentAlteration
A27
varSplitVote
A28
varStates
A29
varThreeJudgeFdc
A30
varVote
A31
varVoteUnclear
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
1
Introduction
A Prefatory Note from Harold J. Spaeth, Distinguished University Professor, emeritus,
Michigan State University;
Research Professor in the College of Law and in the Institute for Public Policy & Social
Research.
The database to which this introduction pertains spans all four centuries of the Court’s
decisions, from its first decision in 1791 to the Court’s most recent decision. As such, it
contains sixty variables for each case which, in turn, are composed of 2,633 elements, or
components. The data in any given case, therefore, is drawn from a universe of 157,980
data points. The likelihood of resulting error — actual or debatable — remains ever present,
and so I invite users of the database to inform me not only of errors, but also of any
comments or suggestions (good, bad, or indifferent) they care to make at spaeth@msu.edu.
The initial version of this database, which began with the Warren Court in 1953 and was
back dated to the beginning of the Vinson Court in 1946, dates from the mid-1980’s at the
dawn of the desktop computing revolution and relies on pre-microcomputing and
pre-internet conditions. As such, users needed knowledge of statistical software packages
and the codified variables that the database contains. This new version, however, recognizes
the existence of the 21st century by eliminating acquaintance with statistical software
packages and coded variables. Plain English rules! But do note that the database can be
uploaded into statistical packages to perform advanced calculations if a user so desires.
Aside from the foregoing, the major feature of this version of the database is an interface
that is in line with modern technology and which will allow users to directly calculate and
view relationships among the variables in the database. At present, this feature is available
for the post-1946 terms; we are working on incorporating the legacy data.
I have specified decision rules governing the entry of data into the various variables, most
particularly the legal provisions governing the Court’s decisions and the issues to which
cases pertain. These, however, are not set in concrete. You, of course, are free to redefine
any and all variables on your copy of the database. If convention applies, I adhere to it. But
for many variables and their specific entries, none exists.
Because the database now extends over four centuries, it is necessary to add, alter, and
adjust a number of variables. I do so to keep the legacy cases (those decided between 1791
and the Court’s acquisition of discretionary jurisdiction as a result of the Judges’ Bill of
1925) as congruent as possible with the Court’s modern decisions. These changes primarily
apply to the issues the Court decides. Most notable is the addition of a set of common law
issues. These account for much of the Court’s heritage decisions, especially those of the
19th century, and have had little applicability to any but the parties to these cases.
In specifying the issue in the legacy cases I have chosen the one that best accords with what
today’s Court would consider the issue to be. For example, “prize cases,” those in which
6 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
vessels were captured on the high seas and brought into U.S. ports, are categorized either as
Fifth Amendment takings clause cases or as cases pertaining to the jurisdiction of the
federal district or appeals courts, depending on which issue the Court based its
decision.This was done to provide a basis for continuity in the Court’s decision making and
to avoid undue segmentation of the Court’s decisions. The same rule applies to various
provisions pertaining to the Bill of Rights even though the Fourteenth Amendment had not
been ratified and no guarantees of the Bill of Rights had been made binding on the state and
local governments.
Do recognize, however, that the foregoing paragraph applies only to the issue(s) the Court
addressed and not to the legal provisions decided by the Court. The latter were largely
nonexistent before the end of the Civil War. These early legacy decisions generally rested
either on the common law or judicial fiat.
Because of current concerns I have given primacy to issues involving women and Native
Americans in cases in which they are involved.
The major shortcomings of this beta version of the database are, first, the incomplete
rendering of the legacy cases’ (pre-1946) legal provisions. We had assumed that the
structure of the legacy cases would follow the pattern of those decided in 1946 and
thereafter. Unfortunately, we were mistaken. Multiple issues and legal provisions in the
modern cases were coded contemporaneously as they were handed down except for Vinson
Court decisions (1946-1952) which were coded as a group in the 1970’s. I simply added a
second or third record to the case when I initially coded it a few days after the Court handed
it down. Given that these heritage cases had been decided in the 154 years between 1791
and 1945, it was of course impossible to have followed the current procedure of entering all
case data within a few days of its decision. Adding this additional information would have
postponed the release of this beta version of the database for several more years, to say
nothing of the alpha version.
Hence, if you are analyzing issue, legal provision, or direction (liberal, conservative,
indeterminate), keep in mind that the data pertain only to the first of what may comprise an
additional number of issues or legal provisions for any given case. This will be no problem
for many studies but for some your analysis may be incomplete. Thus, if you are analyzing
all self-incrimination cases, or all those pertaining to the Judiciary Act of 1789, or all state
police power cases that pertain to welfare or morals legislation you will have the bulk of
such cases, but not quite all.
A second shortcoming is that only the case-centered version of the heritage database is
available at present. This presents no problem if you are interested only in case citation,
which most users are. The next major release will include a docket-centered version.
I wish to thank my former student, Distinguished University Professor Jeffrey Segal of the
State University of New York at Stony Brook for his extremely valuable comments and
suggestions on all phases and aspects of the database since its inception in the early 1980’s.
7 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
I also thank Harriet Dhanak, the former programming and software specialist in the
Department of Political Science at Michigan State University, for her expert guidance and
assistance. Her successor, Lawrence Kestenbaum, continued and extended the stellar
services on which I had become dependent. Most recently I have relied on the superb
technical knowledge and skills of John Schwarz of the Michigan State University Institute
for Political and Social Science Research and his talented successor, Jess Sprague.
Professor Tim Hagle of the University of Iowa continues to systematically inform me of
errors and missing data that I have overlooked. My former graduate students, now well
tenured scholars–Sara C. Benesh and Wendy L. Martinek–have shepherded me through the
more arcane byways of current versions of statistical software packages. And though this
feature of the database is now passe, their previous assistance has been key.
I also deeply appreciate the support provided me by the Michigan State University College
of Law and that of Milly Shiraev of the University’s Institute for Political and Social
Science Research.
Three outstanding individuals are most responsible for this version of the database. Lee
Epstein, whose wide-ranging scholarly productivity is unmatched in the world of judicial
scholarship and effectively compliments her hard driving even-handed taskmastership;
Andrew D. Martin, former chair of the Department of Political Science, professor of law,
and Director of the Center for Empirical Research in Law (CERL) at Washington
University in St. Louis, and now Dean of the College of Art, Science, and Letters at the
University of Michigan, whose methodological competence knows no bounds; and Troy
DeArmitt, Technology Director of CERL. Without his masterful skills the database would
still be locked into its primitive pre-microcomputer and pre-internet structure. Its
transformation into the creatively designed and implemented database you have at hand is
Troy’s creation.
Compilation of this database has been supported by grants from the National Science
Foundation. Without its assistance, the database would not exist.
Notes to All Users
1. The Supreme Court Database’s research team continuously updates the database.
Accordingly, we urge you to pay attention to the date your version appeared on the website
and to check whether it is the current one.
2. The codebook now provides five pieces of information for each variable: the name of the
variable as it appears in the current version of the Database, the name Spaeth used in
previous versions (if applicable), any normalization (changes we made when converting
from Spaeth’s format to the new web version), and, of course, a description of the variable
and a list of its values.
– End of Content for Variable 1. Introduction –
8 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
2
Citing to the SCDB
To cite to the Supreme Court Database, please employ either of the following: Harold J.
Spaeth, Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal, Theodore J. Ruger, and Sara C.
Benesh. 2017 Supreme Court Database, Version 2017 Release 01. URL:
http://Supremecourtdatabase.org
Harold J. Spaeth, Lee Epstein, et al. 2017 Supreme Court Database, Version 2017 Release
1. URL: http://Supremecourtdatabase.org
Please be sure to include the specific Version Number; e.g., ‘Version 2017 Release 01′ in
your citation as this will indicate the particular version of the database being employed at
the time of your reference. This matter is of great importance as the database will be
updated with newly announced decisions, corrections, and the addition of new data for
existing cases.
– End of Content for Variable 2. Citing to the SCDB –
9 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
3
SCDB Case ID
Variable Name
caseId
Spaeth Name
n/a
Normalizations
n/a
This is the first of four unique internal identification numbers.
The first four digits are the term. The next four are the case within the term (starting at 001
and counting up).
– End of Content for Variable 3. SCDB Case ID –
10 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
4
SCDB Docket ID
Variable Name
docketId
Spaeth Name
n/a
Normalizations
n/a
This is the second of four unique internal identification numbers.
The first four digits are the term. The next four are the case within the term (starting at 001
and counting up). The last two are the number of dockets consolidated under the U.S.
Reports citation (starting at 01 and counting up).
– End of Content for Variable 4. SCDB Docket ID –
11 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
5
SCDB Issues ID
Variable Name
caseIssuesId
Spaeth Name
n/a
Normalizations
n/a
This is the third of four unique internal identification numbers.
The first four digits are the term. The next four are the case within the term (starting at 001
and counting up). The next two are the number of dockets consolidated under the U.S.
Reports citation (starting at 01 and counting up). The last two are the number of issues and
legal provisions within the case (starting at 01 and counting up).
– End of Content for Variable 5. SCDB Issues ID –
12 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
6
SCDB Vote ID
Variable Name
voteId
Spaeth Name
n/a
Normalizations
n/a
This is the fourth of four unique internal identification numbers.
The first four digits are the term. The next four are the case within the term (starting at 001
and counting up). The next two are the number of dockets consolidated under the U.S.
Reports citation (starting at 01 and counting up). The next two are the number of issues and
legal provisions within the case (starting at 01 and counting up). The next two indicate a
split vote within an issue or legal provision (01 for only one vote; 02 if a split vote). The
final two represent the vote in the case (usually runs 01 to 09, but fewer if less than all
justices participated).
– End of Content for Variable 6. SCDB Vote ID –
13 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
7
U.S. Reporter Citation
Variable Name
usCite
Spaeth Name
US
Normalizations
n/a
The next four variables provide the citation to each case from the official United States
Reports (US) and the three major unofficial Reports, the Supreme Court Reporter (S.CT),
the Lawyers’ Edition of the United States Reports(LEd), and the LEXIS cite.
Especially note that these four Reporters are not identical in the cases they report. Slight
differences exist among the per curiam and non-orally argued decisions and whether or not
multiple citations accompany the lead decision under the original citation. Our listing
derives primarily from that of the Lawyer’s Edition, supplemented by the US Reports.
Except for memorandum decisions at the back of each volume, we include virtually every
decision the Court has made during its four centuries of existence.
Also note that LEXIS cites have the advantage of being unique; the other reporters can
have multiple cases on the same page.
Further note that pagination does not invariably proceed chronologically throughout the
volumes. Hence, do not assume that because a given citation has a higher page number than
that of another case it was decided on the same or a later date as the other case. The only
accurate way to sequence the cases chronologically is by indexing or otherwise sequencing
each case’s date of decision (date of decision).
– End of Content for Variable 7. U.S. Reporter Citation –
14 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
8
Supreme Court Citation
Variable Name
sctCite
Spaeth Name
SCT
Normalizations
n/a
See variable U.S. Reporter Citation (usCite).
– End of Content for Variable 8. Supreme Court Citation –
15 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
9
Lawyers Edition Citation
Variable Name
ledCite
Spaeth Name
LED
Normalizations
n/a
See variable U.S. Reporter Citation.
– End of Content for Variable 9. Lawyers Edition Citation –
16 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
10
LEXIS Citation
Variable Name
lexisCite
Spaeth Name
n/a
Normalizations
n/a
See variable U.S. Reporter Citation (usCite).
– End of Content for Variable 10. LEXIS Citation –
17 of 132
8/14/17, 3:38 PM
The Supreme Court Database Codebook
11
Docket Number
Variable Name
docket
Spaeth Name
DOCKET
Normalizations
n/a
This variable contains the docket number that the Supreme Court has assigned to the case.
Prior to the first two terms of the Burger Court (1969-1970), different cases coming to the
Court in different terms could have the same docket number. The Court eliminated the
possibility of such duplication by including the last two digits of the appropriate term
before the assigned docket number. Since the 1971 Term, the Court has also operated with
a single docket. Cases filed pursuant to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction have a two-digit
number corresponding to the term in which they were filed, followed by a hyphen and a
number varying from one to five digits. Cases invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction
have a number followed by the abbreviation, “Orig.”
During much of the legacy period, docket number do not exist in the Reports; a handful of
more modern cases also lack a docket number. For these, the docket variable has no entry.
For administrative purposes, the Court uses the letters, “A,” “D,” and “S,” in place of the
term year to identify applications (“A”) for stays or bail, proceedings of disbarment or
discipline of attorneys (“D”), and matters being held indefinitely for one reason or another
(“S”). These occur infrequently and then almost always in the Court’s summary orders at
the back of each volume of the U.S.Reports. The database excludes these cases, the
overwhelming majority of which are denials of petition for certiorari.
Note that the Court can consolidate multiple petitions–each with its own docket
number–under one U.S. cite. If you are interested in only the first (lead) …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!