Skip to main content
Log in

Chess algorithms of supreme court decision making: A bioconstitutional politics analysis

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines, from a biopolitical perspective, the methodologies by which Supreme Court justices have interpreted the Constitution, assessing their decisional algorithms against models owing an intellectual debt to evolutionary theory. The models themselves are drawn from the chess literature, itself the most viable game theoretic context for “living constitutional” play. A proper appreciation of chess mastery yields the salient conclusion that a functionalist algorithm of data characterization is optimally adaptive for these purposes, usually proving more robust than competing structuralist and heuristic algorithms in resolving complex constitutional issues.

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

  • Adamson v. California (1947). 332 U.S. 46.

  • Allman, William F. (1986). Mindworks.Science 86 (May): 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney (1963).The Civic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, Robert (1984).The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, Robert (1986). An evolutionary approach to norms.American Political Science Review 80: 1095–1111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, Robert, and Hamilton, William D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation.Science 211: 1390–1396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Theodore L. (1964).Political Behavioralism and Modern Jurisprudence. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, Arthur F. (1950). Kennetic inquiry.Science 112: 775–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botvinnik, M. M. (1981).Achieving the Aim. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardozo, Benjamin (1921).The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmen, Ira H. (1966). One civil libertarian among many: The case of Mr. Justice Goldberg.Michigan Law Review 65: 301–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmen, Ira H. (1978).Power and Balance. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmen, Ira H. (1985).Cloning and the Constitution. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmen, Ira H. (1987). Bioconstitutional politics: Toward an interdisciplinary paradigm.Politics and the Life Sciences 5: 193–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, Lief H. (1985).Contemporary Constitutional Lawmaking: The Supreme Court and the Art of Politics. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation v. PSC (1980). 447 U.S. 557.

  • Chandrasekhar, S. (1988).Truth and Beauty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Matt, et al. (1987). A user's guide to hormones.Newsweek, Jan. 12, pp. 50–59.

  • Colegrove v. Green (1946). 328 U.S. 549.

  • Corwin, Edward S. (1953). The steel seizure case: A judicial brick without straw.Columbia Law Review 53: 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig v. Boren (1976). 429 U.S. 190.

  • Cuno Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp. (1941). 314 U.S. 84.

  • Dandridge v. Williams (1970). 397 U.S. 471.

  • Debs v. United States (1919). 249 U.S. 211.

  • de Groot, A. D. (1965).Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis v. United States (1951). 341 U.S. 494.

  • Devine, Donald J. (1972).The Political Culture of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doe v. Bolton (1973). 410 U.S. 179.

  • Elrod v. Burns (1976). 427 U.S. 347.

  • Euwe, M. (1970). Computers and chess. In Anne Sunnucks (ed.),The Encyclopaedia of Chess, pp. 78–88. New York: St. Martin's.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everson v. Board of Education (1947). 330 U.S. 1.

  • Fine, Reuben (1951).The World's Great Chess Games. New York: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, Reuben (1967).The Psychology of the Chess Player. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Bobby (1969).My 60 Memorable Games. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Bobby, et al. (1966).Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. New York: Basic Systems.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Furman v. Georgia (1972). 408 U.S. 238.

  • Gibson, James L. (1983). From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior.Political Behavior 5: 7–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluckman, Max (1955).The Judicial Process Among the Barotse of Northern Rhodesia. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg v. Georgia (1976). 428 U.S. 153.

  • Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). 381 U.S. 479.

  • Grossman, Joel B. (1962). Role playing and the analysis of judicial behavior: The case of Mr. Justice Frankfurter.Journal of Public Law 11: 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley v. Ohio (1948). 332 U.S. 596.

  • Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918). 247 U.S. 251.

  • Handberg, Roger (1987). Bioconstitutional politics: Frankfurter on the New Frontier.Politics and the Life Sciences 5: 208–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 99th Congress, 2nd Session (July 29–August 1, 1986).Nomination of Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist.

  • Hirsch, H. N. (1981).The Enigma of Felix Frankfurter. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • INS v Chadha (1983). 462 U.S. 919.

  • Irvine v. California (1954). 347 U.S. 128.

  • Katz v. United States (1967). 389 U.S. 347.

  • Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967). 385 U.S. 589.

  • Kingsley Books v. Brown (1957). 354 U.S. 436.

  • Kovacs v. Cooper (1949). 336 U.S. 77.

  • Lane, Robert E. (1962).Political Ideology. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasker, Emanuel (1947).Lasker's Manual of Chess. Philadelphia: McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D., and Kaplan, Abraham (1950).Power and Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithauser, Brad (1987). The space of one breath (computer chess).The New Yorker, Mar. 9, pp. 41–73.

  • Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). 403 U.S. 602.

  • Levi, Edward H. (1948).An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, K. N. (1934). The Constitution as an institution.Columbia Law Review 34: 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lochner v. New York (1905). 198 U.S. 45.

  • Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber (1947). 329 U.S. 459.

  • Lumsden, Charles J., and Wilson, E. O. (1983).Promethean Fire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher v. Roe (1977). 432 U.S. 464.

  • Mapp v. Ohio (1961). 367 U.S. 643.

  • Marbury v. Madison (1803). 1 Cranch 137.

  • Marsh v. Chambers (1983). 463 U.S. 783.

  • Masters, Roger D. (1983). The biological nature of the state.World Politics 35:161–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson, Wallace (1963). The neo-behavioral approach to the judicial process: A critique.American Political Science Review 57: 593–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer v. Nebraska (1923). 262 U.S. 390.

  • Mills v. Habluetzel (1982). 456 U.S. 91.

  • Missouri v. Holland (1920). 252 U.S. 416.

  • Muller v. Oregon (1908). 208 U.S. 412.

  • Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943). 319 U.S. 105.

  • Nebbia v. New York (1934). 291 U.S. 502.

  • New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). 376 U.S. 254.

  • New York Times v. United States (1971). 403 U.S. 713.

  • Nimzowitsch, Aron (1962).The Praxis of My System. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ordeshook, Peter (1986).Game Theory and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palko v. Connecticut (1937). 302 U.S. 319.

  • Pennekamp v. Florida (1946). 328 U.S. 331.

  • Pritchett, C. Herman (1948).The Roosevelt Court. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, C. Herman (1954).Civil Liberties and the Vinson Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid v. Covert (1956). 351 U.S. 487.

  • Reti, Richard (1960).Modern Ideas in Chess. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reti, Richard (1976).Masters of the Chessboard. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche, John P. (1957). The utopian pilgrimage of Mr. Justice Murphy.Vanderbilt Law Review 10: 369–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochin v. California (1952). 342 U.S. 165.

  • Roe v. Wade (1973). 410 U.S. 113.

  • Rokeach, Milton (1968).Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saidy, Anthony, and Lessing, Norman (1974).The World of Chess. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • San Antonio Ind. School Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973). 411 U.S. 1.

  • Schenck v. United States (1919). 249 U.S. 47.

  • Schubert, Glendon (1965a). Jackson's judicial philosophy.American Political Science Review 59: 940–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1965b).The Judicial Mind. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1967). The rhetoric of constitutional change.Journal of Public Law 16: 16–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senate Select Committee v. Nixon (1973). 366 F. Supp. 51.

  • Sergeant, P. W. (1963).Championship Chess. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, Martin (1966).Freedom of Speech. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherbert v. Verner (1963). 374 U.S. 398.

  • Simon, Herbert A. (1979).Models of Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Rogers M. (1988). Political jurisprudence, the “New Institutionalism,” and the future of public law.American Political Science Review 82: 89–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, Harold J. (1966).The Warren Court: Cases and Commentary. San Francisco: Chandler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, George (1972). Fields of force.The New Yorker, Oct. 28, pp. 42–117.

  • Tartakower, S., and du Mont, J. (1975).500 Master Games of Chess. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill v. Alabama (1940). 310 U.S. 88.

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1960). Supreme Court behavior and civil rights.Western Political Quarterly 13: 288–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Rabinowitz (1950). 339 U.S. 56.

  • West Virginia State Board v. Barnette (1943). 319 U.S. 624.

  • Wiener v. United States (1958). 357 U.S. 349.

  • Wolf v. Colorado (1949). 338 U.S. 25.

  • Wooley v. Maynard (1977). 430 U.S. 705.

  • Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952). 343 U.S. 579.

  • Zorach v. Clausen (1952). 343 U.S. 306.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carmen, I.H. Chess algorithms of supreme court decision making: A bioconstitutional politics analysis. Polit Behav 11, 99–121 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992490

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992490

Keywords

Navigation