That's the title of Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman's new book, on Princeton press. It's a good one, and it is getting quite a bit of well-deserved praise.
What it has also done, if taken seriously, is toss a grenade into how we measure Court-related things, especially policy preferences. To the extent that measures like the Martin-Quinn scores are based on votes, and votes aren't just tapping ideology (a point made convincingly in the book), we're back in the difficult spot of having relatively little to go on if we want to measure the justices' policy preferences directly.
Of course, people will continue to use M-Q scores and the like as preference measures, just as they use things like NOMINATE in the Congressional realm. But Bailey and Maltzman's book also suggests that we should begin to think hard about other sources of data for this key construct.
Comments