Введение
Оценка Сегала — Ковера — это попытка измерить «воспринимаемые квалификации и идеологию» кандидатов в Верховный суд Соединенных Штатов. Оценки создаются путем анализа редакционных статей о кандидатурах, опубликованных в The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch и The Wall Street Journal. Каждый кандидат получает два балла в диапазоне от 0 до 1, основанных на среднем балле всех статей из этих источников:
Qualifications: 0 means unqualified and 1 means extremely qualified
Qualification scores are based on the characterization of each editorial as positive, neutral, or negative toward the nominee. Positive articles are coded as 1, neutral articles as 0.5, and negative articles as 0. Ideology: 0 means most conservative, and 1 means most liberal. Ideology scores are based on each editorial's characterization of the nominee as liberal, moderate, conservative, or not applicable. Articles characterizing the nominee as liberal are coded as 1, moderate as .5, conservative as 0; articles deemed not applicable are omitted from the ideology score. The scores have since been updated as part of The Supreme Court Justices Database, a project led by USC Gould School of Law Professor Lee Epstein. A score for Kentanji Brown Jackson has not yet been published. Because the scores are based on perceptions before the nominee takes a seat on the Court, they provide a measure of the ideological values of Supreme Court justices that is independent of the votes they later cast.
Квалификация: 0 означает неквалифицированный, а 1 — исключительно квалифицированный.
Баллы за квалификацию основаны на оценке каждой редакции как положительной, нейтральной или отрицательной по отношению к кандидату. Положительные статьи кодируются как 1, нейтральные — как 0,5, а отрицательные — как 0.
Qualifications: 0 means unqualified and 1 means extremely qualified
Qualification scores are based on the characterization of each editorial as positive, neutral, or negative toward the nominee. Positive articles are coded as 1, neutral articles as 0.5, and negative articles as 0. Ideology: 0 means most conservative, and 1 means most liberal. Ideology scores are based on each editorial's characterization of the nominee as liberal, moderate, conservative, or not applicable. Articles characterizing the nominee as liberal are coded as 1, moderate as .5, conservative as 0; articles deemed not applicable are omitted from the ideology score. The scores have since been updated as part of The Supreme Court Justices Database, a project led by USC Gould School of Law Professor Lee Epstein. A score for Kentanji Brown Jackson has not yet been published. Because the scores are based on perceptions before the nominee takes a seat on the Court, they provide a measure of the ideological values of Supreme Court justices that is independent of the votes they later cast.
Идеология: 0 означает наиболее консервативную, а 1 — наиболее либеральную. Идеологические баллы основаны на оценке каждого кандидата в редакциях как либерального, умеренного, консервативного или неприменимого. Статьи, характеризующие кандидата как либерального, кодируются как 1, умеренного — как 0,5, консервативного — как 0; статьи, признанные неприменимыми, исключаются из расчета идеологического балла.
Qualifications: 0 means unqualified and 1 means extremely qualified
Qualification scores are based on the characterization of each editorial as positive, neutral, or negative toward the nominee. Positive articles are coded as 1, neutral articles as 0.5, and negative articles as 0. Ideology: 0 means most conservative, and 1 means most liberal. Ideology scores are based on each editorial's characterization of the nominee as liberal, moderate, conservative, or not applicable. Articles characterizing the nominee as liberal are coded as 1, moderate as .5, conservative as 0; articles deemed not applicable are omitted from the ideology score. The scores have since been updated as part of The Supreme Court Justices Database, a project led by USC Gould School of Law Professor Lee Epstein. A score for Kentanji Brown Jackson has not yet been published. Because the scores are based on perceptions before the nominee takes a seat on the Court, they provide a measure of the ideological values of Supreme Court justices that is independent of the votes they later cast.
Впоследствии оценки были обновлены в рамках базы данных судей Верховного суда — проекта под руководством профессора юридического факультета USC Gould Ли Эпштейн. Оценка для Кентанжи Браун Джексон пока не опубликована. Поскольку оценки основаны на восприятии кандидатов до их назначения в Суд, они предоставляют меру идеологических взглядов судей Верховного суда, независимую от их последующих голосов.
Qualifications: 0 means unqualified and 1 means extremely qualified
Qualification scores are based on the characterization of each editorial as positive, neutral, or negative toward the nominee. Positive articles are coded as 1, neutral articles as 0.5, and negative articles as 0. Ideology: 0 means most conservative, and 1 means most liberal. Ideology scores are based on each editorial's characterization of the nominee as liberal, moderate, conservative, or not applicable. Articles characterizing the nominee as liberal are coded as 1, moderate as .5, conservative as 0; articles deemed not applicable are omitted from the ideology score. The scores have since been updated as part of The Supreme Court Justices Database, a project led by USC Gould School of Law Professor Lee Epstein. A score for Kentanji Brown Jackson has not yet been published. Because the scores are based on perceptions before the nominee takes a seat on the Court, they provide a measure of the ideological values of Supreme Court justices that is independent of the votes they later cast.
Прогнозная мощность
Сегал и Ковер обнаружили, что их идеологический показатель сильно коррелирует с последующими решениями судей по делам о гражданских свободах, с коэффициентом корреляции 0,80 и R² равным 0,64. В статье 1995 года, пересматривающей оценку Сегала и Ковера, Сегал и его соавторы заключили, что идеологический показатель был значительно точнее для судей, работавших во время и после Верховного суда при Уоррене, и предостерегли, что исследователи, анализирующие идеологию более ранних судей, должны дополнять идеологические оценки этих судей другими методами, и что "исследователи должны учитывать изменения в правовой, политической и социальной среде (которые формируют реакцию прессы, на которой основаны оценки) и использовать соответствующие диагностические инструменты для выявления их потенциального влияния".