Moving on Up: Institutional Position, Politics and the Chief Justice

Acclimation Effects and the Chief Justice: The Influence of Tenure and Role on the Decisional Behavior of the Court’s Leader, 1888-2007

“…Because of these institutional role and tenure-based dynamics, which may be cross-cutting, Lanier and Wood (2001) suggested those who serve as chief justice in particular may choose a policy advocate perspective or an institutional advocate prospective. That theoretical foundation is employed here.…”

“…This viewpoint is clearly demonstrated in the work of Segal andSpaeth (1993, 2002) who, among other scholars, argue that the institutional protections afforded to the justices provide them the opportunity to articulate their policy stances unfettered by concerns of tenure or removal. As such, policy advocates are comparatively unconcerned with the institution's relative power or prestige as compared to other institutions or political competitors (e.g., Gerber & Park, 1997;Lanier & Wood, 2001). Policy advocates may choose to write relatively more special opinions or otherwise to depart from the majority coalition so as to delineate their policy or doctrinal preferences on the particular issue at hand while being largely unconcerned about, among other things, the unanimity of the Court, its perceived power, or the finality with which the law is settled.…”

“…Following Lanier and Wood (2001), new chief justices may alternatively choose an institutional advocate perspective. The institutional advocate's behavior will be reflected in several ways (e.g., voting and opinion-writing behavior) that serve to bolster the Court's influence as an institution and the chief's personal influence as the Court's leader (see Mondak 1992;Ulmer 1986).…”

“…This study seeks to blend these two rich strands in the literature and explores whether chief justices demonstrate an acclimation effect, such that they behave in systematic ways differently early in their service as opposed to subsequently. Some recent work has suggested that the first two term years of a chief justice's tenure differ in qualitative and quantitative ways from the decisional behavior of the Court later in that chief justice's service (Hurwitz & Lanier, 2008;Lanier & Wood, 2001). Hence, this study will seek to determine if there is an acclimation effect for "newcomer" chief justices (Hurwitz & Stefko, 2004, p. 121).…”

“…Under the acclimation effect view, those justices who are recent appointees to the Court modify their behavior in systematic ways early in their tenure as opposed to their decisional tendencies characteristic of laterterm-years, dissenting less and penning comparably fewer separate opinions, as they learn the traditions and norms of the institution across time. Similarly, there are a great number of studies that have examined the unique behavior of the chief justice because of the specific institutional prerogatives offered only to the incumbent of that office (e.g., Danelski, 1989;Lanier & Wood, 2001;Steamer, 1986;Wood et al, 1998aWood et al, , 1998bWood et al, , 2000.…”