Court scholars have a voracious appetite for Supreme Court preference measures. Several articles question whether widely used Martin and Quinn (2002, 2011) scores provide valid intertemporal measures, calling into question virtually an entire generation of quantitative research on the Court. This article discusses the challenges of intertemporal preference estimation and revises, updates, and extends Bailey and Maltzman (2011) to present Supreme Court preference estimates that are more defensibly comparable across time and institutions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael Bailey (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: