Replication Data for: On Separation of Powers and Obfuscation in U.S. Supreme Court Opinions.
<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> You are a research archivist expert in dataset metadata. Answer the question truthfully.  <|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'A longstanding debate in American judicial politics concerns whether the U.S. Supreme  Court anticipates or responds to the possibility that Congress will override its decisions.  A recent theory proposes that opinions that are relatively hard to read are more costly  for Congress to review—and that as a result, the Court can decrease the likelihood of  override from a hostile Congress by obfuscating its opinions: writing opinions that are  less readable when congressional review is a threat. I derive a straightforward but novel  empirical implication of this theory; I then show that the implication does not in fact  hold. This casts serious doubt on the claim that justices strategically obfuscate opinion  language to avoid congressional override. I also discuss sentence tokenization as a source of measurement error in readability stati' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> {"Answer" : ["Congress","obfuscation","separation of powers","U.S. Supreme Court","writing style"]} <|eot_id|>
 Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'A longstanding debate in American judicial politics concerns whether the U.S. Supreme  Court anticipates or responds to the possibility that Congress will override its decisions.  A recent theory proposes that opinions that are relatively hard to read are more costly  for Congress to review—and that as a result, the Court can decrease the likelihood of  override from a hostile Congress by obfuscating its opinions: writing opinions that are  less readable when congressional review is a threat. I derive a straightforward but novel  empirical implication of this theory; I then show that the implication does not in fact  hold. This casts serious doubt on the claim that justices strategically obfuscate opinion  language to avoid congressional override. I also discuss sentence tokenization as a source of measurement error in readability stati' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.
A longstanding debate in American judicial politics concerns whether the U.S. Supreme  Court anticipates or responds to the possibility that Congress will override its decisions.  A recent theory proposes that opinions that are relatively hard to read are more costly  for Congress to review—and that as a result, the Court can decrease the likelihood of  override from a hostile Congress by obfuscating its opinions: writing opinions that are  less readable when congressional review is a threat. I derive a straightforward but novel  empirical implication of this theory; I then show that the implication does not in fact  hold. This casts serious doubt on the claim that justices strategically obfuscate opinion  language to avoid congressional override. I also discuss sentence tokenization as a source of measurement error in readability stati
Congress; obfuscation; separation of powers; U.S. Supreme Court; writing style