Content area
Full Text
Presidential influence transcends some of the barriers imposed by the separation of powers to influence decision making by the Supreme Court. Specifically, we test Robert Scigliano's proposition that an informal and limited alliance exists between the president and the Court. The analysis utilizes Supreme Court decisions on civil rights and civil liberties cases from 1953 to 2000 to assess the effects of the presidency, Congress, judicial policy preferences, and legal factors on the Court. The findings demonstrate that presidential ideology influences Court decisions, while the effects of Congress are more conditional and limited. The results provide support for Scigliano's notion of an informal alliance.
The framers of the Constitution did not make policy making easy. By separating governmental power into multiple institutions and providing for checks and balances between the three branches, the framers created a fragmented, decentralized political system. A cursory look at the Constitution clearly reveals the intended hierarchy of power. Article I is long and detailed, giving Congress a wealth of power and authority. By contrast, Articles II and III are brief, vague, and did not forecast the current strength of the executive and judicial branches.
The national government's current power structure is very different from what the framers intended. Crises, foreign affairs, war, technological advances, and Congress's willingness to relinquish some of its powers have all contributed to a stronger American presidency (Barilleaux 2006; Dodd 1986; Fisher 2001). Similarly, judicial activism and congressional abdication on a number of controversial issues have contributed to the increased power of the Supreme Court (Pacelle 2002). Despite these changes, the construction of public policy remains a protracted process.
Presidents have an incentive to use their time in the White House to cement their place in history. Presidents must work closely with Congress to ensure that their legislative agendas survive and flourish. But, as most presidents soon learn, that is not enough. An important consideration depends on the context the president faces (Barber 1992; Lewis and Strine 1996; Skowronek 1997). Over the bulk of the past 50 years, a number of presidents have served during periods of divided government, which, of course, complicates their attempts to exert influence and establish their legacies (Fiorina 1996; Quirk 1991). This has prodded presidents to seek influence and advance...