Michael Bailey writes:

I saw your blog post on Supreme Court ideal points.

I [Bailey] have long shared a [disagreement with] the Martin and Quinn scores in 1973; I have an AJPS paper which goes to great lengths to think about that and uses cross time (and cross institutional) bridging observations to get estimates that are, in my opinion, more plausible over time.

See page 435 for a discuss of Martin and Quinn scores and p. 444 for my [Bailey’s] alternative results.

I don’t have anything to add at this time; I’d just like to say that this sort of scholarly discussion is great: it is often through disagreements at particular points that we make scientific progress.