Gender and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Analysis of Voting Behavior in Gender-Based Claims and Civil-Rights and Economic-Activity Cases

By Scheurer, Katherine Felix | Justice System Journal, September 1, 2012 | Go to article overview

Gender and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Analysis of Voting Behavior in Gender-Based Claims and Civil-Rights and Economic-Activity Cases


Scheurer, Katherine Felix, Justice System Journal


Although several studies examine the influence of gender in the U.S. Supreme Court, research is still unsettled regarding the overall influence of gender in the voting behavior of Supreme Court justices. Employing data from Harold Spaeth's U.S. Supreme Court Databases, I systematically examine the extent to which gender influences individual Supreme Court justices' voting decisions across four issue areas. I find that although gender does not appear to influence the voting behavior of Supreme Court justices in civil-rights cases, male and female justices vote significantly differently in cases involving sex discrimination, reproductive rights, and economic activity.

The vacancies left by Justice David Souter and Justice John Paul Stevens presented President Obama with the rare opportunity to appoint two new members to the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama's nomination, and the subsequent appointments, of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan has drawn attention to the criteria presidents use when selecting candidates to the Supreme Court, particularly whether gender, race, and ethnicity should be taken into account. After learning of President G. W. Bush's nomination of now Chief Justice John Roberts as her replacement, retired Justice O'Connor commented, "He's good in every way, except he's not a woman" (Landers, 2005:A1). Some believe it is important to have a "representative" Supreme Court, while others feel that background characteristics such as race, gender, and ethnicity are of little significance, and the sole criterion for selecting a nominee should be judicial qualifications.1 A question this discussion raises is whether personal characteristics of judges, such as gender, influence the decision-making process of the Supreme Court. Is gender irrelevant to judging, or have Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought a different judicial perspective to the bench? Does it make a difference whether both male and female justices serve on the U.S. Supreme Court?

In recent years, judicial scholars have begun to devote attention to exploring whether behavioral differences are apparent in the decisions male and female judges make (see, e.g., O'Connor and Segal, 1990; Songer, Davis, and Haire, 1994; Martin and Pyle, 2000). Much of this research, however, focuses on examining state supreme courts, U.S. District Courts, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals, while few studies look at the U.S. Supreme Court. Surprisingly, we really have little evidence about whether or not the behavior of male and female Supreme Court justices, while controlling for ideology, differs over a range of issue areas. This article assesses whether differences persist in the final voting decisions of male and female Supreme Court justices across four issue areas: sex discrimination, reproductive rights, civil rights, and economic activity.

THEORY

Some legal scholars conclude that as the number of female attorneys and judges continues to grow, we are much more likely to observe differences between male and female judges, as well as see women having a profound effect on law (see, e.g., Menkel-Meadow, 1985). The major goal of this research is to assess whether the voting patterns of the first two female justices to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court differ from that of their male colleagues. That is, are Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg more likely to vote liberally than the male justices serving on the Court in cases involving gender-based claims (sex discrimination and reproductive rights), civil rights, and economic activity. There are two primary explanations that provide the basis for expecting that Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg will cast more liberal votes than their male counterparts-"different voice" theory and the belief that the role orientations of male and female judges differ and, thus, female judges substantively represent and act on the behalf of women.

"Different Voice" Theory. Research has shown that a gender gap exists between men and women in regards to compassion issues, attitudes toward violence and war, the economy, and partisanship. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Gender and the U.S. Supreme Court: An Analysis of Voting Behavior in Gender-Based Claims and Civil-Rights and Economic-Activity Cases
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.