Political scientists have developed an attitudinal model, which explains that the Supreme Court decides cases not on the basis of rules and doctrine but on the basis of individual Justices’ political and ideological attitudes about the issues presented and/or the litigants before them. This Article details a study examining the possible attitudinal bases of a large number of federal district court decisions involving constitutional self-representation claims. The study demonstrates an exception to the attitudinal model, which is the prominence of doctrine in the decisions of lower federal court judges who adjudicate conscious of appellate reviewability.
John R. Quinn,
"Attitudinal" Decision Making in the Federal Courts: A Study of Constitutional Self-Representation Claims,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol33/iss2/6