Reynolds has complained in the past that social scientists don’t take legal research seriously. This is true and not true. Social scientists take rigorous research seriously and the problem with some/much legal research is that it isn’t rigorous. William Eskridge is well respected by political scientists because his research is rigorous. Maybe Glenn should read it after posting this:
Or, if you’re one of those people who see the Court as a largely political animal, you might think that justices on the court who support other "right-wing" outcomes like ending affirmative action might think it useful to balance those by overturning Bowers. I don’t think the Court looks at cases that way, myself, but many people do and I suppose I could be wrong.
Why does Reynolds not address the evidence? There is a growing body of work on strategic behavior by justices. How is it wrong? Or is this a faith based claim by him? Or does he even understand the literature? The hypothesis is testable, has been tested, and has been confirmed by most tests to date. Most of the work criticizing strategic decision-making by courts takes a non-rigorous approach. So why does Reynolds think it is wrong?