@article{alstyne1964the,
    author = "Alstyne, William W. Van and Hyneman, Charles S.",
    title = "The Supreme Court on Trial",
    year = "1964",
    journal = "Michigan Law Review",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1286464",
    doi = "10.2307/1286464",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W4248494199",
    pages = "186",
    volume = "63"
}

@book{worsnop1966supreme,
    author = "Worsnop, Richard L.",
    title = "Supreme Court: Legal Storm Center",
    year = "1966",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4135/cqresrre1966092800",
    doi = "10.4135/cqresrre1966092800",
    openalex = "W4391290071"
}

@misc{grabiner1974effects16,
    author = "Grabiner, J. V. and Miller, P. D",
    title = "Effects of the Scopes trial",
    year = "1974",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 185, p. 832-837",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Grabiner, J. V., and Miller, P. D., 1974, Effects of the Scopes trial: Science, v. 185, p. 832-837.}"
}

@misc{cloud1977evolutionary9,
    author = "Cloud, P",
    title = "Evolutionary Theory and Creation Mythology, in Edwords, F., ed., Evolution vs. Creationism",
    year = "1977",
    howpublished = "The Schools as Battleground: Amherst, New York, American Humanist Association, p. 27-29; 1986",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Cloud, P., 1977, Evolutionary Theory and Creation Mythology, in Edwords, F., ed., Evolution vs. Creationism: The Schools as Battleground: Amherst, New York, American Humanist Association, p. 27-29; 1986.}"
}

@misc{edwords1980why10,
    author = "Edwords, F",
    title = "Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught as Science. Part 1",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "The Legal Issues: Creation/Evolution, v. 1, p. 2-23",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Edwords, F., 1980, Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught as Science. Part 1: The Legal Issues: Creation/Evolution, v. 1, p. 2-23.}"
}

@misc{saladin1980creationist33,
    author = "Saladin, K",
    title = "Creationist Bill Dies in Georgia Legislature",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "The Humanist, no. May/June, 1980, p. 59-60",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Saladin, K., 1980, Creationist Bill Dies in Georgia Legislature: The Humanist, no. May/June, 1980, p. 59-60.}"
}

@misc{broad1981creationists8,
    author = "Broad, W. J",
    title = "Creationists limit scope of evolution case",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 211, p. 1331-1332",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Broad, W. J., 1981, Creationists limit scope of evolution case: Science, v. 211, p. 1331-1332.}"
}

@article{doi1023071961370,
    author = "Tate, C. Neal",
    title = "Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "American Political Science Review",
    abstract = "The prevailing view among students of judicial politics is that judges' background characteristics or personal attributes cannot provide satisfactory explanations for variation in their decision-making behavior. Parsimonious attribute models reported here account for 70 to 90 percent of the variance in the voting of postwar Supreme Court justices in split decisions concerning civil rights and liberties, and economics. Seven variables representing six meaningful and easily interpretable concepts achieve this success. The concepts are Judge's Party Identification, Appointing President, Prestige of Prelaw Education (economics only), Appointed from Elective Office, Appointment Region (civil liberties only), Extensiveness of Judicial Experience, and Type of Prosecutorial Experience. The impressive performance of these models is attributed to superior measurement, operationalization, and model building; to a greater similarity between personal attribute models and more fully specified ones than has been assumed; and to the possibility that the attitudes which intervene between the personal attributes and the voting of judges are causally very closely linked to voting.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1961370",
    doi = "10.2307/1961370",
    openalex = "W2039768080"
}

@misc{edwords1981why11,
    author = "Edwords, F",
    title = "Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught as Science. Part 2",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "The Educational Issues: Creation/Evolution, v. 3, p. 6-36",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Edwords, F., 1981, Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught as Science. Part 2: The Educational Issues: Creation/Evolution, v. 3, p. 6-36.}"
}

@misc{futuyma1982science13,
    author = "Futuyma, D. J",
    title = "Science on Trial",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "The Case for Evolution: New York, Pantheon Books",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Futuyma, D. J., 1982, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution: New York, Pantheon Books.}"
}

@misc{keith1982scopes22,
    author = "Keith, B",
    title = "Scopes II",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "The Great Debate: Schreveport, Louisiana, Huntington House",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Keith, B., 1982, Scopes II: The Great Debate: Schreveport, Louisiana, Huntington House.}"
}

@misc{nelkin1982the28,
    author = "Nelkin, D",
    title = "The Creation Controversy",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science or Scripture in the Schools: New York, Norton, 242 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Nelkin, D., 1982, The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools: New York, Norton, 242 p.}"
}

@misc{overton1982creationism31,
    author = "Overton, J. and W.R",
    title = "Creationism in the schools; The decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 215, p. 934-943",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Overton, J., W.R., 1982, Creationism in the schools; The decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education: Science, v. 215, p. 934-943.}"
}

@misc{overton1982memorandum30,
    author = "Overton, J. W. R",
    title = "Memorandum on Rev",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Bill McLean et al. LR C 81 322",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Overton, J. W. R., 1982, Memorandum on Rev. Bill McLean et al. LR C 81 322.}"
}

@misc{overton1982united29,
    author = "Overton, J. W. R",
    title = "United States Supreme Court Opinion",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "McLean vs. Arkansas, in Ruse, M., ed., But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, p. 307-311",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Overton, J. W. R., 1982, United States Supreme Court Opinion: McLean vs. Arkansas, in Ruse, M., ed., But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, p. 307-311.}"
}

@incollection{boles1983religion7,
    author = "Boles, D. E",
    editor = "Wilson, D. B.",
    title = "Religion in the Schools: A Historical and Legal Perspective",
    year = "1983",
    booktitle = "Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation/Evolution Controversy",
    publisher = "Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press, p. 170-188",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Boles, D. E., 1983, Religion in the Schools: A Historical and Legal Perspective, in Wilson, D. B., ed., Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation/Evolution Controversy: Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press, p. 170-188.}"
}

@book{futuyma1983science14,
    author = "Futuyma, D. J",
    title = "Science On Trial",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "The Case For Evolution: New York, Pantheon Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Futuyma, D. J., 1983, Science On Trial: The Case For Evolution: New York, Pantheon Press.}"
}

@book{lafollette1983creationism23,
    author = "La Follette, M. C",
    title = "Creationism, Science and the Law",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "The Arkansas Case: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 236 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {La Follette, M. C., 1983, Creationism, Science and the Law: The Arkansas Case: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 236 p.}"
}

@misc{gribben1984the17,
    author = "Gribben, J. and Sattaur, O",
    title = "The school-children's eclipse",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "Science 84, v. 5, no. 4, p. 51-56",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gribben, J., and Sattaur, O., 1984, The school-children's eclipse: Science 84, v. 5, no. 4, p. 51-56.}"
}

@article{doi1023072095548,
    author = "Gieryn, Thomas F. and Bevins, George M. and Zehr, Stephen C.",
    title = "Professionalization of American Scientists: Public Science in the Creation/ Evolution Trials",
    year = "1985",
    journal = "American Sociological Review",
    abstract = "Thomas F. Gieryn, George M. Bevins, Stephen C. Zehr, Professionalization of American Scientists: Public Science in the Creation/ Evolution Trials, American Sociological Review, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jun., 1985), pp. 392-409",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/2095548",
    doi = "10.2307/2095548",
    openalex = "W2052781968"
}

@book{gilkey1985creationism15,
    author = "Gilkey, L",
    title = "Creationism on Trial",
    year = "1985",
    publisher = "Evolution and God at Little Rock: Minneapolis, Minnesota, Winston Press, 301 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gilkey, L., 1985, Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock: Minneapolis, Minnesota, Winston Press, 301 p.}"
}

@book{larson1985trial24,
    author = "Larson, E. J",
    title = "Trial and Error",
    year = "1985",
    publisher = "The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution: New York, Oxford University Press, 222 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Larson, E. J., 1985, Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution: New York, Oxford University Press, 222 p.}"
}

@misc{curiae1986amicus1,
    author = "Curiae, Amici",
    title = "Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies of Science and 7 Other Scientific Organizations, in Support of Appellees; Edwin W",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Edwards, et al. v. Don Aguillard et al., No. 85-1513, United States Supreme Court",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Amici Curiae, 1986, Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies of Science and 7 Other Scientific Organizations, in Support of Appellees; Edwin W. Edwards, et al. v. Don Aguillard et al., No. 85-1513, United States Supreme Court.}"
}

@misc{hechinger1986fundamentalists19,
    author = "Hechinger, F. M",
    title = "Fundamentalists Turn to Courts, Ballot Box for Control of Schools",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Gainesville (Fla) Sun",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hechinger, F. M., 1986, Fundamentalists Turn to Courts, Ballot Box for Control of Schools: Gainesville (Fla) Sun.}"
}

@article{norman1986creationism,
    author = "Norman, Colin",
    title = "Creationism Case Goes to Supreme Court",
    year = "1986",
    journal = "Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.232.4753.928.a",
    doi = "10.1126/science.232.4753.928.a",
    number = "4753",
    openalex = "W4252956719",
    pages = "928-928",
    volume = "232"
}

@misc{bennetta1987the2,
    author = "Bennetta, W. J",
    title = "The Meaning of 'Balanced Treatment",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 6-7",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bennetta, W. J., 1987, The Meaning of 'Balanced Treatment': Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 6-7.}"
}

@misc{bird1987evaluation5,
    author = "Bird, W",
    title = "Evaluation, in Impact",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "El Cajon, California, Institute for Creation Research, v. 170, p. i-iii",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bird, W., 1987, Evaluation, in Impact: El Cajon, California, Institute for Creation Research, v. 170, p. i-iii.}"
}

@misc{epstein1987court12,
    author = "Epstein, A",
    title = "Court Strikes Down Law on Creationism",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Miami Herald",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Epstein, A., 1987, Court Strikes Down Law on Creationism: Miami Herald.}"
}

@article{goodwin1987supreme,
    author = "Goodwin, Irwin",
    title = "Supreme Court Bars Creationism in Schools",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Physics Today",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2820181",
    doi = "10.1063/1.2820181",
    number = "9",
    openalex = "W2043868248",
    pages = "56-57",
    volume = "40"
}

@misc{hastey1987high18,
    author = "Hastey, S",
    title = "High Court Strikes Down Creation Science Law",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Florida Baptist Witness, v. 73, no. 173, p. 31",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hastey, S., 1987, High Court Strikes Down Creation Science Law: Florida Baptist Witness, v. 73, no. 173, p. 31.}"
}

@article{lewin1987creationism,
    author = "Lewin, Roger",
    title = "Creationism Case Argued Before Supreme Court",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.235.4784.22",
    doi = "10.1126/science.235.4784.22",
    number = "4784",
    openalex = "W2083400776",
    pages = "22-23",
    volume = "235"
}

@misc{lewin1987creationism25,
    author = "Lewin, R",
    title = "Creationism Case Argued Before Supreme Court",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 235, p. 22-23",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lewin, R., 1987, Creationism Case Argued Before Supreme Court: Science, v. 235, p. 22-23.}"
}

@misc{martz1987keeping26,
    author = "Martz, L. and McDaniel, A",
    title = "Keeping God out of the Classroom",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Newsweek, p. 23-24",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Martz, L., and McDaniel, A., 1987, Keeping God out of the Classroom: Newsweek, p. 23-24.}"
}

@misc{mckinney1987court27,
    author = "McKinney, J",
    title = "Court Hears Creationism Arguments",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 6, p. 11-12",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McKinney, J., 1987, Court Hears Creationism Arguments: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 6, p. 11-12.}"
}

@misc{raloff1987high32,
    author = "Raloff, J",
    title = "High Court Rejects Creationism Law",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Science News, v. 131, p. 404",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Raloff, J., 1987, High Court Rejects Creationism Law: Science News, v. 131, p. 404.}"
}

@misc{research1987creationism20,
    author = "for Creation Research, Institute",
    title = "Creationism and the Supreme Court",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Acts and Facts, v. 16, no. 8, p. 1,3",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Institute for Creation Research, 1987, Creationism and the Supreme Court: Acts and Facts, v. 16, no. 8, p. 1,3.}"
}

@misc{research1987the21,
    author = "for Creation Research, Institute",
    title = "The Supreme Court Decision and its Meaning",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 170",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Institute for Creation Research, 1987, The Supreme Court Decision and its Meaning: ICR Impact Series, v. 170.}"
}

@misc{scott1987louisiana34,
    author = "Scott, E. C",
    title = "Louisiana Decision Announced",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 5-8",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Scott, E. C., 1987, Louisiana Decision Announced: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 5-8.}"
}

@misc{zimmerman1987that35,
    author = "Zimmerman, M",
    title = "That Court Ruling Won't Stop the Creationists",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 4-5",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Zimmerman, M., 1987, That Court Ruling Won't Stop the Creationists: Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 4-5.}"
}

@misc{bennetta1988the3,
    author = "Bennetta, W. J",
    title = "The Rise and Fall of the Louisiana Creationism Law, Part 1",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "A Bold Trick': Terra, v. 26, p. 20-27",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bennetta, W. J., 1988, The Rise and Fall of the Louisiana Creationism Law, Part 1: 'A Bold Trick': Terra, v. 26, p. 20-27.}"
}

@misc{bennetta1988the4,
    author = "Bennetta, W. J",
    title = "The Rise and Fall of the Louisiana Creationism Law, Part 2",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Nonsense on Stilts': Terra, v. 27, p. 16-23",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bennetta, W. J., 1988, The Rise and Fall of the Louisiana Creationism Law, Part 2: 'Nonsense on Stilts': Terra, v. 27, p. 16-23.}"
}

@misc{bliss1988good6,
    author = "Bliss, R. B",
    title = "Good Science",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "A K-6 plan for Excellence: ICR Impact Series, v. 182",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bliss, R. B., 1988, Good Science: A K-6 plan for Excellence: ICR Impact Series, v. 182.}"
}

@article{crossref1992the,
    title = "The causes of molecular evolution",
    year = "1992",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.30-2064",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.30-2064",
    number = "04",
    pages = "30-2064-30-2064",
    volume = "30"
}

@article{doi102307797418,
    author = "Cross, Frank B. and Tiller, Emerson H.",
    title = "Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals",
    year = "1998",
    journal = "The Yale Law Journal",
    abstract = "Frank B. Cross, Emerson H. Tiller, Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 107, No. 7 (May, 1998), pp. 2155-2176",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/797418",
    doi = "10.2307/797418",
    openalex = "W1269568190"
}

@book{doi101017cbo9780511615696,
    author = "Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.",
    title = "The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited",
    year = "2002",
    booktitle = "Cambridge University Press eBooks",
    abstract = "This book, authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants: the legal and rational choice. Using the US Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions. The book will be the definitive presentation of the attitudinal model as well as an authoritative critique of the legal and rational choice models. The book thoroughly reflects research done since the 1993 publication of its predecessor, as well as decisions and developments in the Supreme Court, including the momentous decision of Bush v. Gore.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511615696",
    doi = "10.1017/cbo9780511615696",
    openalex = "W4299614237"
}

@article{doi101093pan102134,
    author = "Martin, Andrew D. and Quinn, Kevin M.",
    title = "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999",
    year = "2002",
    journal = "Political Analysis",
    abstract = "At the heart of attitudinal and strategic explanations of judicial behavior is the assumption that justices have policy preferences. In this paper we employ Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to fit a Bayesian measurement model of ideal points for all justices serving on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1953 through 1999. We are particularly interested in determining to what extent ideal points of justices change throughout their tenure on the Court. This is important because judicial politics scholars oftentimes invoke preference measures that are time invariant. To investigate preference change, we posit a dynamic item response model that allows ideal points to change systematically over time. Additionally, we introduce Bayesian methods for fitting multivariate dynamic linear models to political scientists. Our results suggest that many justices do not have temporally constant ideal points. Moreover, our ideal point estimates outperform existing measures and explain judicial behavior quite well across civil rights, civil liberties, economics, and federalism cases.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.2.134",
    doi = "10.1093/pan/10.2.134",
    openalex = "W2153140039"
}

@article{doi105860choice406706,
    author = "Segal, Jeffrey Allan and Spaeth, Harold J.",
    title = "The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited",
    year = "2003",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "This book, authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants: the legal and rational choice. Using the US Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions. The book will be the definitive presentation of the attitudinal model as well as an authoritative critique of the legal and rational choice models. The book thoroughly reflects research done since the 1993 publication of its predecessor, as well as decisions and developments in the Supreme Court, including the momentous decision of Bush v. Gore.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.40-6706",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.40-6706",
    openalex = "W1587375510"
}

@article{doi1011771532673x04264987,
    author = "Kritzer, Herbert M. and Richards, Mark J.",
    title = "The Influence of Law in the Supreme Court’s Search-and-Seizure Jurisprudence",
    year = "2004",
    journal = "American Politics Research",
    abstract = "In this research note/replication, we apply the construct of jurisprudential regimes as described in our recent article to the jurisprudential area of search and seizure. Given the centrality of this area of Supreme Court decision making in the core studies supporting the attitudinal model, replicating our analysis of the jurisprudential regime construct in this area provides an important test of the concept. Our results produce strong support for the proposition that post-Mapp decision making can be separated into distinct regimes, with a set of important cases decided in 1983-1984 demarcating the regimes. The predictors of decisions in the two periods are consistent with the types of changes one would expect the regime shift to produce. Our findings challenge the attitudinalists’proposition that there is at best negligible statistical evidence that law influences Supreme Court decision making.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x04264987",
    doi = "10.1177/1532673x04264987",
    openalex = "W2149735198"
}

@article{magnussen2005the,
    author = "Magnussen, Anne-Mette",
    title = "The Norwegian Supreme Court and Equitable Considerations: Problematic Aspects of Legal Reasoning",
    year = "2005",
    journal = "Scandinavian Political Studies",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0080-6757.2005.00121.x",
    doi = "10.1111/j.0080-6757.2005.00121.x",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W1969917913",
    pages = "69-89",
    volume = "28",
    references = "doi101162002081898550699, doi1018261issn1504306119960401, doi10432497804293446713"
}

@article{doi1016410006356820060560151eacis20co2,
    author = "Bleckmann, Charles A.",
    title = "Evolution and Creationism in Science: 1880–2000",
    year = "2006",
    journal = "BioScience",
    abstract = "Abstract The journal Science has documented the evolutionist–creationist controversy since it began publication in 1880. The annual number of references suggests the intensity of the public debate. Peaks occurred in response to the Scopes trial (1925) and trials in California (1979–1981), Arkansas (1981), and Louisiana (1982–1987). Although evolutionists won the last three outright, and public opinion largely supported science in the Scopes trial, dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court in the most recent case seem to have given impetus to new creationist activity—the intelligent design movement. Arguments have changed only slightly in the last century and a quarter. Fundamentalist opposition to teaching evolution remains strong. Scientists have consistently suggested better education as the solution to the dispute; however, to date, evidence does not support that position. Differences between science and fundamentalism appear irreconcilable, and no obvious end to the acrimonious debate is in sight.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0151:eacis]2.0.co;2",
    doi = "10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0151:eacis]2.0.co;2",
    openalex = "W2172850408",
    references = "broad1981creationists, doi101126science1854154832, doi101126science2154535934, doi101126science2775328890, doi101126science2885467813, doi101126science3531, doi101126science55141255, doi101126science551417194, doi101126scienceos1215, doi1023072954697, lewin1981creationism, lewin1987creationism, openalexw3086307878, overton1982creationism"
}

@article{doi101257jel462285,
    author = "Porta, Rafael La and López‐de‐Silanes, Florencio and Shleifer, Andrei",
    title = "The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Journal of Economic Literature",
    abstract = "In the last decade, economists have produced a considerable body of research suggesting that the historical origin of a country's laws is highly correlated with a broad range of its legal rules and regulations, as well as with economic outcomes. We summarize this evidence and attempt a unified interpretation. We also address several objections to the empirical claim that legal origins matter. Finally, we assess the implications of this research for economic reform.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.2.285",
    doi = "10.1257/jel.46.2.285",
    openalex = "W3121522673",
    references = "doi1010160304405x7690026x, doi101016jjfineco200702007, doi101086250042, doi101086260866, doi1011110022108200115, doi101111j154062611997tb02727x, doi101111j154062611997tb04820x, doi101257jep20223, doi10230730040740, doi10432497810035497418, openalexw1495886451, openalexw3123548166"
}

@article{doi101086712654,
    author = "Skiple, Jon Kåre and Bentsen, Henrik Litleré and McKenzie, Mark Jonathan",
    title = "How Docket Control Shapes Judicial Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of the Norwegian and Danish Supreme Courts",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Journal of Law and Courts",
    abstract = "Abstract European courts have responded to increasing caseloads by providing justices or other actors with a higher degree of discretionary docket control. Does docket type—mandatory or discretionary—shape judicial behavior? Using a most similar systems research design regarding tax decisions in the Norwegian and Danish supreme courts, we show that discretionary dockets are associated with higher dissent and reversal rates than mandatory dockets, that low-status litigants have a lower chance of winning under mandatory dockets, and that docket type conditions the effects of justices’ preferences. Our findings have implications for comparative judicial politics and for institutional design.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/712654",
    doi = "10.1086/712654",
    openalex = "W3112826910",
    references = "doi1018261issn1504293620150404"
}

@article{doi1011111467947712176,
    author = "Skiple, Jon Kåre and Bentsen, Henrik Littleré and Hanretty, Chris",
    title = "The Government Deference Dimension of Judicial Decision Making: Evidence from the Supreme Court of Norway",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Scandinavian Political Studies",
    abstract = "Past research has revealed conflicting findings regarding the degree to which judges on European apex courts enact their policy preferences or instead disagree on the basis of divergent legal views. We investigate disagreement between judges on the Norwegian Supreme Court between 1996 and 2016. During this period, the court dealt with a greater volume of policy‐relevant cases than previously. The method of appointment to the court was also changed to a judicial appointments commission. We analyse non‐unanimous cases using item response theory models. We find that judges are not divided along left–right lines but instead disagree about the appropriate degree of deference to give to public authorities. There is no significant association between the appointing government and judges' ideal points either before or after the reform to appointments. Judges who were formerly academics are however much less deferential than career judges or judges who were previously lawyers in private practice.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12176",
    doi = "10.1111/1467-9477.12176",
    openalex = "W3038652816",
    references = "doi101017cbo9780511615696, doi101017s0003055404001194, doi101017s0020818307070233, doi101086676999, doi10109301992564890010001, doi101093pan102134, doi1011770010414094026004001, doi10121408aoas191, doi1018261issn1504293620150404, doi1023071961370, magnussen2005the, openalexw3106333376"
}

@article{doi1010800098261x20222095944,
    author = "Nie, Mintao and Grendstad, Gunnar and Shaffer, William R. and Waltenburg, Eric N.",
    title = "The Impact of Female Leadership in Collegial Courts on Time to Render Merits Decisions: Evidence from the Norwegian Supreme Court",
    year = "2022",
    journal = "Justice System Journal",
    abstract = "What is the effect of gender on the deliberative process of judging? Drawing on previous research on female leaders’ inclination to foster a more inclusive and collaborative decision-making process, we argue that decision making takes more time in a collegial court when female justices preside over decisional panels. Analyzing an original data set on cases decided by the Norwegian Supreme Court between 2008 and 2019, we find that when a woman is the presiding justice, the duration of case disposition time increases. This effect, however, persists for only eight days. Our finding suggests that institutional practices take effect over gendered effects.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2022.2095944",
    doi = "10.1080/0098261x.2022.2095944",
    openalex = "W4286500665",
    references = "doi1011111467947712176"
}

@article{doi101111jels12408,
    author = "Bentsen, Henrik Litleré and Skiple, Jon Kåre and McKenzie, Mark Jonathan and Grendstad, Gunnar",
    title = "The Impact of Judicial Leadership on Consensus Formation: Evidence From the Supreme Court of Norway",
    year = "2025",
    journal = "Journal of Empirical Legal Studies",
    abstract = "ABSTRACT Which judicial leaders are more successful in achieving consensus? This article examines the impact of the leadership of presiding justices on consensus formation on the Norwegian Supreme Court where cases are distributed randomly to two parallel decisional panels. We hypothesize that presiding justices with certain characteristics (e.g., gender and chief justice), when in charge of the decision‐making process, are more willing and better able to forge consensus, which could lead to greater respect for courts and the rule of law. We account for a variety of characteristics of the justices, as well as several conditions under which the cases were decided. The results confirm that both chief justices and female justices, when operating as the presiding justice of the panel, are significantly more likely to steer the case towards a unanimous decision as compared to their fellow justices. Legal academics serving as presiding justices had no discernable impact on consensus formation. The results provide evidence outside the American context that chief justices and women justices have the ability to achieve greater consensus. As such, diversity and appointments have consequences for judicial leadership and for consensus formation on a court.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12408",
    doi = "10.1111/jels.12408",
    openalex = "W4406183466",
    references = "doi1011111467947712176"
}

@article{doi101111jels12411,
    author = "Miwa, Hirofumi",
    title = "Assessing the Conservative Nature of the Supreme Court of Japan via Ideal Point Estimation of Justices",
    year = "2025",
    journal = "Journal of Empirical Legal Studies",
    abstract = "ABSTRACT Japan is an intriguing case in the literature of judicial independence because of the Liberal Democratic Party's (LDP) long‐lasting one‐party dominance in government—which, in theory, leads to low independence. Although scholars have found plentiful anecdotal observations implying the LDP's judicial control, quantitative evidence remains scarce. Focusing on the Supreme Court as the first step, this study provides a new dataset on justices' ideal points through an extensive compilation of justices' voting data and application of the dynamic item response theory model. I validate the estimates' interpretability as ideological positions. The results present several novel findings: justices with a career‐judge background are relatively conservative; the Chief Justice tends to be particularly conservative; the conservative camp has tended to hold on to a court majority since the 1960s; and the government's partisanship, to some degree, influences appointed justices' positions. These results reinforce scholars' views that Japan's court leans conservatively and aligns with the LDP, with implications for judicial independence in Japan.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12411",
    doi = "10.1111/jels.12411",
    openalex = "W4409277894",
    references = "doi1011111467947712176"
}

@article{lytvyn2025administrative,
    author = "Lytvyn, N. A.",
    title = "Administrative and legal aspects of staffing the Supreme Court",
    year = "2025",
    journal = "Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law",
    abstract = "The article examines the administrative and legal aspects of staffing the Supreme Court under martial law. It is noted that the realities of wartime have created new circumstances that directly affect personnel policy: these are mobility restrictions, physical destruction or temporary inaccessibility of court premises, rotation of judges, the need to administer justice under shelling, relocation of institutions, as well as risks to the life and health of judicial system employees. It is noted that this exacerbates the already existing systemic problems associated with the staffing shortage in the judiciary, which is worsening every year. The problems that arise in the field of selection, transfer, rotation of judges, as well as difficulties associated with legal uncertainty regarding forms of remote employment and travel of judges under emergency conditions are analyzed. The key problems include: staffing shortage; lack of effective and flexible mechanisms for rapid response to emergency circumstances, which makes it impossible to ensure continuous and high-quality administration of justice; low level of digital transformation of personnel administration in the judicial system; insufficient consideration of the specifics of wartime in the training and retraining of judges. Particular attention is paid to the lack of flexible legal mechanisms for responding to challenges caused by the war, in particular, the disproportionate staffing load on individual chambers of the Supreme Court. The risks that accompany the adoption of judicial decisions in conditions of staff shortage, which may affect the legitimacy of judicial activity, are highlighted. It is indicated that the introduction of a systematic approach to personnel planning, the institutionalization of continuous education and advanced training of judges, including through specialized training, in particular on the consideration of cases of international crimes, are relevant areas for improving personnel policy. Conclusions are drawn regarding the need to update the regulatory regulation of personnel procedures in the judicial system of Ukraine, in order to ensure its sustainable functioning even under emergency conditions.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2025.90.3.39",
    doi = "10.24144/2307-3322.2025.90.3.39",
    number = "90",
    openalex = "W4415585781",
    pages = "271-276",
    volume = "3"
}