Replication data for: Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the Supreme Court?

A good deal of scholarly evidence suggests that the decision making of the U.S. Supreme Court is affected by legal argument. At the same time, it seems clear that in a great many cases the justices have enduring, strongly held views. In such cases, they should be impervious to the effects of advocacy. When are the justices apt to be influenced by the Court’s legal community, and when will lawyers be less relevant? The answer, we think, has to do with the salience of the issue before the Court. We suspect that in non-salient cases the justices have less-intense prefere nces and therefore are open to the persuasion of lawyers. In salient cases, by contrast, the content of legal policy matters much more to the justices. As a result, they are less amenable to legal argument and adhere more strictly to their personal policy preferences. Our empirical tests support this orientation.大量学术研究证据表明，美国最高法院（U.S. Supreme Court）的决策会受到法律辩论的影响。与此同时，大量案例清晰显示，该院大法官往往持有持久且坚定的立场。在此类情形下，他们本应不受诉讼辩护的影响。那么，大法官们何时会受到最高法院法律界群体的影响，又在何种情形下律师的辩护将不再具有实质意义？我们认为，答案取决于待审案件的议题显著性（salience）。我们推测，在非显著性案件中，大法官们的政策偏好强度较低，因此更容易接受律师的说服。而在显著性案件中，法律政策的具体内容对大法官而言则更为关键。因此，他们更不易接受法律辩论的影响，会更严格地恪守自身的个人政策偏好。我们的实证检验验证了这一理论取向。