10.7910/DVN/RPZLMYBonica, AdamAdamBonicaStanford UniversityHarvard Dataverse2016Social SciencesIdeal point estimationCommon-space scalingJudicial behaivorFederal courtsLawyers and the legal professionBonica, AdamAdamBonicaStanford UniversityPolitical Analysis2016-08-032016-08-077747216255813388122150871775303266521656357013241261731412972164731384801application/pdftext/tab-separated-valuestext/tab-separated-valuestext/tab-separated-valuestype/x-r-syntaxtype/x-r-syntaxtype/x-r-syntaxtype/x-r-syntaxtype/x-r-syntaxtext/plaintype/x-r-syntaxtext/csvtype/x-r-syntaxtype/x-r-syntaxtype/x-r-syntax1.0CC0 1.0This replication archive contains all data and code to replicate the results in "A Common-Space Scaling of the American Judiciary and Legal Profession" by Maya Sen and Adam Bonica. <p> <p> <b>Abstract:</b> We extend the scaling methodology previously used in Bonica (2014) to jointly scale the American federal judiciary and legal profession in a common-space with other political actors. The end result is the first data set of consistently measured ideological scores across all tiers of the federal judiciary and the legal profession, including 840 federal judges and 380,307 attorneys. To illustrate these measures, we present two examples involving the U.S. Supreme Court. These data open up significant areas of scholarly inquiry.