One manner in which Presidents attempt to have an enduring policy influence
is through the appointment of like-minded justices to the Supreme Court. T
his article empirically examines Dahl's (1957) hypothesis that justices act
ually support the policy preferences of the Presidents who appoint them. We
study concordance with new data for measuring presidential preferences in
the domains of social and economic policy and by incorporating the notion o
f judicial change over time. We measure presidential preferences for the mo
dern Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt through Bill Clinton, with a survey tak
en from a random sample of political science scholars who study the Preside
ncy. We measure the voting behavior of the President's Supreme Court appoin
tees through their votes in civil liberties and economics cases from 1937 t
o 1994. Presidents appear to be reasonably successful in their appointments
in the short run, but justices on average appear to deviate over time away
from the Presidents who appointed them.