You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Chief Justices and Self-Assignment of Majority Opinions: A Research Note
Elliot E. Slotnick
The Western Political Quarterly
Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 219-225
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/447813
Page Count: 7
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
In his exercise of the opinion assignment prerogative the Chief Justice is in a unique position to affect the formulation of judicial policy pronouncements by designating the Court's spokesman. In addition, the Chief's potential for writing "desirable" cases further augments his power. In this project we have examined the manner in which Chief Justices Taft through Burger have exercised their potential for self-assignment. The data revealed that Chief Justices pursue relatively "favorable" self-assignment policies. Such self-advantageous behavior was particularly evident in opinion assignment in a sample of "important" cases. The analysis further revealed that the self-assignment behavior of Supreme Court Chief Justices is consistent with a strategy of asserting the symbolic potential of the Chief Justiceship. The findings were supportive of the theoretical expectations for opinion assignment gleaned from earlier research.
The Western Political Quarterly © 1978 University of Utah