The major premise of this analysis is that subjective considerations lie at the heart of case selection. The study hypothesizes that the justices' perception of a judge's role and of the Supreme Court's role in the judicial system significantly limit the range of case-selection behavior that the justices might otherwise exhibit. A high degree of consensus exists within the Court, both about the role of the judge and about the role of the Supreme Court as the forum of last resort in the complex Federal system. During the Burton period, this consensus was evident from the significant percentage of unanimous votes to review cases concerning the jurisdictional boundaries between the various layers of government and cases brought by petitioners. When the justices disagree on case selection, they reflect differences in how they weigh the fundamental responsibilities of the Court against the circumstances of actual cases, as well as differences in how they view the merits of the claims that petitioners make for relief. Merits are frequently a source of disunity in case selection; the justices also differ on the merits themselves. A justice's conceptions of the judicial role and the Supreme Court's role appear to be key elements in his decisionmaking. However, role perceptions and preferences for one outcome over another are probably entwined with each other. Role perceptions can be conceptualized as an intervening variable between the policy preferences of the justices and their case-selection votes. Tables and extensive notes are provided. (Author abstract modified)