Skip to main content
Log in

In the mirror of the justices: Sources of greatness on the Supreme Court

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Few political scientists have undertaken systematic study of the determinants of greatness on the Supreme Court. In this article, I formulate and test a series of competing explanations for judicial eminence in a multivariate model. For the measure of performance on the Court, I use Blaustein and Mersky's ratings of the justices. The alternative explanations include social backgrounds, occupational experiences, political connections, experiences on the Court, and region of residence. Neither occupational experiences nor political connections have an appreciable impact on the level of achievement a justice reaches. Thus, contrary to one of the most popular hypotheses, previous judicial experience does not give an individual any advantage. Instead, in much greater measure, experiences on the Supreme Court and certain social backgrounds differentiate among the various levels of performance. In particular, the statistical analysis indicates the centrality and potency of parental status, religious affiliation, reputation as a dissenter, the number of opinions written in “landmark” cases, holding the office of chief justice, years of service, and the age of the justice at appointment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, Henry J. (1983). “A bench happily filled”: Some historical reflections on the Supreme Court appointment process.Judicature 66: 282–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abraham, Henry J. (1984).Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, Thomas A. (1966).Presidential Greatness: The Image and the Man from George Washington to the Present. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkson, Larry C. (1978).The Supreme Court and Its Publics. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaustein, Albert P., and Mersky, Roy M. (1972). Rating Supreme Court justices.American Bar Association Journal 58: 1183–1190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaustein, Albert P., and Mersky, Roy M. (1978).The First One Hundred Justices: Statistical Studies of the Supreme Court of the United States. Hamden, Conn. Archon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramwell, B. S. (1948). Galton's “Hereditary Genius” and the three following generations since 1869.Eugenics Review 39: 146–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, Saul (1985). Is competence related to majority opinion assignment on the United States Supreme Court?Capital University Law Review 15: 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardozo, Benjamin N. (1925). Law and literature.Yale Law Review 14: 699–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, George R. (1964). A judicial all-star nine.Wisconsin Law Review 1964: 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, Robert F. (1979).Cases in Constitutional Law. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danelski, David J. (1960). The influence of the chief justice in the decisional process. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, New York, New York.

  • Daniels, William J. (1978). The geographic factor in appointments to the United States Supreme Court, 1789–1976.Western Political Quarterly 31: 226–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, William O. (1960). The Supreme Court and its caseload.Cornell Law Review 45: 401–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Evan D. (1948). The dissenting opinion: Its use and abuse.Missouri Law Review 3:121–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, Cortez A. M. (1938).The Judges of the Supreme Court, 1787–1937:A Study of Their Qualifications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairman, Charles (1950). What makes a great justice? Mr. Justice Bradley and the Supreme Court, 1870–1892.Boston University Law Review 30: 49–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, Malcolm M., and Krislov, Samuel (1985).Constitutional Law. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, John P. (1958).The Marble Palace: The Supreme Court in American Life. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurter, Felix (1957). The Supreme Court in the mirror of the justices.University of Pennsylvania Law Review 105: 781–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galton, Francis (1869).Heredity genius. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibb, Cecil A. (1968). Leadership. InHandbook of Social Psychology, Gardner Lindzey and Elliott Aronson (eds.), Volume 4. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goertzel, V., and M. G. Goertzel (1962).Cradles of Eminence. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1982). Judicial selection and the qualities that make a “good” judge.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 462: 112–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1971). American judges: Their selection, tenure, variety, and quality.Current History 60: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1982).Constitutional Law and Supreme Court Decision-Making. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, James E. (1983). The all-time all-star all-era Supreme Court.American Bar Association Journal 69: 463–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes Charles Evans (1928).The Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulbary, William E., and Walker, Thomas G. (1979). The Supreme Court selection process: Presidential motivations and judicial performance.Western Political Quarterly 33: 185–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krislov, Samuel (1957). Oliver Wendell Holmes: The ebb and flow of judicial legendry.Northwestern University Law Review 52: 514–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kynerd, Tom (1971). An analysis of presidential greatness of “presidential rating.”Southern Quarterly 9: 309–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindzey, Gardner, and Byrne, Donn (1968). Measurement of social choice and interpersonal attractiveness. InHandbook of Social Psychology, Gardner Lindzey and Elliott Aronson (eds.), Volume 2. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maranell, Gary M. (1970). The evaluation of presidents: An extension of the Schlesinger polls.Journal of American History 57: 104–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Alpheus T., and Beaney, William M. (1978).American Constitutional Law. 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson, Wallace (1965).The Constitution and the Supreme Court, 2nd ed. New York: Dodd, Mead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, Robert K., and Blessing, Tim H. (1983). The presidential performance study: A progress report.Journal of American History 70: 535–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1970). Characteristics of Supreme Court greatness.Journal of the American Bar Association 56: 957–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pound, Roscoe (1938).The Formative Era of American Law. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidhauser, John R. (1972).Supreme Court Justices Biographical Data. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Inter-University Consortium for Political Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidhauser, John R. (1959). The justices of the Supreme Court: A collective portrait.Midwest Journal of Political Science 3: 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidhauser, John R. (1979).Judges and Justices: The Federal Appellate Judiciary. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Bernard (1979). The judicial ten: America's greatest judges.Southern Illinois University Law Review 1979: 405–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scigliano, Robert (1972).The Supreme Court and the Presidency. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, Dean Keith (1976). Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate approach to the Cox data.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33: 218–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, Dean Keith (1981). Presidential greatness and performance: Can we predict leadership in the White House?Journal of Personality 49: 306–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, Dean Keith (1983). Intergenerational transfer of individual difference in hereditary monarchs: Genes, role-modeling, cohort, or sociocultural effects?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 354–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, Dean Keith (1984).Genius, Creativity, and Leadership: Historiometric Inquiries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotnick, Elliot E. (1979). The equality principle and majority opinion assignment on the United States Supreme Court.Polity 12: 318–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotnick, Elliot E. (1978). The chief justice and self-assignment of majority opinions: A research note.Western Political Quarterly 31: 219–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Thomas G., and Hulbary, William E. (1978). Selection of capable justices: factors to consider. In The First One Hundred Justices, Albert Blaustein and Roy Mersky (eds.), Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ZoBell, Karl M. (1959). Division of opinion of the Supreme Court: A history of judicial disintegration.Cornell Law Quarterly 44: 186–214.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caldeira, G.A. In the mirror of the justices: Sources of greatness on the Supreme Court. Polit Behav 10, 247–266 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990554

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990554

Keywords

Navigation