Abstract: There are many views on how human decision makers behave. In this work, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court will be viewed in terms of constrained maximization and cognitivecybernetic theory. This paper will integrate research in such fields as law, political science, psychology, economics and decision making theory. It will be argued that due to its heavy workload, the Supreme Court is forced to make decisions in a boundedly rational manner. The ideas and theory put forward here will be tested in the area of the Court’s decisions involving religion. Therefore, the cases involving the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause will be analyzed. Also, variables such as the U.S. government’s involvement in these cases will be considered. The years to be studied will be 1987-2011.
Abstract: This paper analyzes the extent to which the justices of
the U.S. Supreme Court cast votes that support the positions of the
president, or more generally the Executive Branch. Can presidents
count on such deference from those justices they nominate or those
whom are nominated by other presidents of the same party? Or, do
the justices demonstrate judicial independence and impartiality such
that they are not so predisposed to vote in favor of arguments of their
nominating president-s party? The results suggest that while in
general the justices do not exhibit any marked tendency to partisan
support of presidents, more recent and conservative Supreme Court
justices are significantly more likely to support Republican
presidents.