Talk:Segal-Cover score
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kudos to the anon on adding current scores.
I don't know, but that score seems very rare. There is only ONE "pure" liberal in the court? Souter is more conservative than Kennedy? Breyer is a conservative?????? riiiight<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The Stevens score is a poor match. Other than that, they're quite good. And remember, these exist on a plane that incorporates all post-war jurisprudence. The scale has to have room for justices Brennan and Marshall and Douglas and Murphey (1!). The "liberal" wing of the current court is moderate by post-war standards. Remember, Stevens, considered to be a premier "liberal" now, was seen as the ultimate centrist/slight-rightist choice when he was nominated. Vincent Vecera 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm stupid, but is this article saying that the sole determinant for a justice's score is the newspaper editorial assessment of him or her prior to confirmation? How is that an even remotely useful measure? Setting aside any questions of the inability of a newspaper editorial to see the future or set aside its own biases, it does not even try to analyze their actual decisions. Am I missing something or does the article need to be clarified?
- I'd suggest you read the article (by Segal et al.). The point of the scores is to produce exogenous measures of judicial ideology. Measuring by way of case outcomes would require additional premises. They're actually extremely strong predictors of judicial behavior. Two conservative and two liberal papers' pages are used. Vincent Vecera 19:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
These numbers seem to be wrong
To add to the complaints: Justices Whittaker and O'Connor get 1.000 qualifications scores?! I'm going to have to read that article, but I'd not pay much attention to those numbers. --zenohockey 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
