{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016872160934458143, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005191434133679429, 'mean_word_length': 5.451882845188284, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Judicial Conservatism in a Comparative Context: Swiss, South African and American Judges

Glendon Schubert has written a book which must be approached from two very disparate perspectives: as a linear extension of Schubert's earlier work on American Supreme Court judges and as a preliminary attempt at ethological analysis of judicial behavior. Schubert's reputation in the judicial area rests on a corpus of work which culminated in two volumes: The Judicial Mind (1965) and The Judicial Mind Revisited (1974). This work extends those earlier endeavors, in that Schubert's concern is with the impact of judicial ideologies and individual social attributes as explanations of judicial decisions. The project draws its theoretical framework from earlier work by Eysenck and others on a factorial model of political and judicial ideologies. The uniqueness of this study compared to Schubert's earlier work is the extensive use of systematic interview data from Swiss and South African judges in order to examine their attitudinal, ultimately ideological, value structures. The attitudinal data, along with materials on the judges's social backgrounds, is explicitly linked to their decisional outputs as reflected in the official reports. The earlier work by Schubert and most others in the field had not directly linked together these attitudinal variables with decisional outcomes. A prime example of the dichotomy would be the various judicial role studies which often did only verbal comparisons between attitudes and decisional outcomes.