The Attitudinal Model Analysis

The strategic and attitudinal theories are two different ways in which political theorists and those studying political science can describe the behavior and decision-making processes of Supreme Court justices. In The Choices Justices Make, Epstein and Knight make the case for the strategic model, which suggests that Supreme Court justices make their decisions based on strategic measures and foresight of legal policy. On the other hand, Segal and Spaeth, in The Attitudinal Model Revisited, focus on how justices act based on their personal political standpoints, or “attitudes,” alone. The strategic model receives its credibility in many ways, including the interactions among the justices and their opinion writing. As the attitudinal model
What the authors of The Choices Justices Make are trying to convey is that Supreme Court justices act strategically, through the selection of cases and their decisions on the merits of a case, in order to get their policy preferences into law. A key element to this theory is how the justices interact with each other. For instance, one justice may not want a certain case heard if their political preferences are not represented among the majority of the court. Epstein and Knight use the example of Justice Brennan’s strategic decisionmaking in Craig v. Boren, where he chose heightened scrutiny over his preference, strict scrutiny. Epstein and Knight claim that he did this because “based on the knowledge of preferences of other justices, it allowed him to avoid his least preferred position,” which was rational basis (Epstein and Knight, 13). Brennan knew that if he were to prefer strict scrutiny in Craig, then his colleagues would have tried to use rational basis to counter Brennan’s agenda. This type of bargaining is what Epstein and Knight observe and analyze to support the strategic
While they both consider the political preferences of the justices as key factors to their judgements, only the attitudinal model claims these preferences to be the most important factor to a justice’s ruling. The strategic model, on the other hand, claims that justices use certain strategies, like bargaining and interactions with one another, to reach their desired policy outcome, even if it means not making sincere rulings. The attitudinal model attempts to prove this wrong as justices, being appointed for life, have no reason not to make sincere rulings. While they each have their strengths and weaknesses, I feel that the attitudinal model is more convincing as a description of the behavior of Supreme Court Justices. This model is backed up by dense statistic and historic data as well as its roots in legal realism, an approach to law that I favor. Furthermore, I believe that the attitudinal model is a very accurate way to predict how justices will rule, and how their decisions will affect the nation’s political and legal