Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
U.S. Supreme Court (u.s + supreme_court)
Selected AbstractsPOISSON VERSUS BINOMIAL: APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURTAUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF STATISTICS, Issue 3 2010Vassilly Voinov Summary The problem of discriminating between the Poisson and binomial models is discussed in the context of a detailed statistical analysis of the number of appointments of the U.S. Supreme Court justices from 1789 to 2004. Various new and existing tests are examined. The analysis shows that both simple Poisson and simple binomial models are equally appropriate for describing the data. No firm statistical evidence in favour of an exponential Poisson regression model was found. Two attendant results were obtained by simulation: firstly, that the likelihood ratio test is the most powerful of those considered when testing for the Poisson versus binomial and, secondly, that the classical variance test with an upper-tail critical region is biased. [source] UNITED STATES V. BOOKER AS A NATURAL EXPERIMENT: USING EMPIRICAL RESEARCH TO INFORM THE FEDERAL SENTENCING POLICY DEBATE,CRIMINOLOGY AND PUBLIC POLICY, Issue 3 2007PAUL J. HOFER Research Summary: In United States v. Booker, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal sentencing guidelines must be considered advisory, rather than mandatory, if they are to remain constitutional under the Sixth Amendment. Since the decision, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has provided policy makers with accurate and current data on changes and continuity in federal sentencing practices. Unlike previous changes in legal doctrine, Booker immediately increased the rates of upward and downward departures from the guideline range. Government-sponsored downward departures remain the leading category of outside,the-range sentences. The rate of within-range sentences, although lower than in the period immediately preceding Booker, remains near rates observed earlier in the guidelines era. Despite the increase in departures, average sentence lengths for the overall caseload remain stable, because of offsetting increases in the seriousness of the crimes being sentenced and in the severity of penalties for those crimes. Analyses of the reasons that judges reported for downward departures suggest that treatment of criminal history and offender characteristics are the two leading areas of dissatisfaction with the guidelines. Policy Implications: Assessment of changes in sentencing practices following Booker by different observers depends partly on competing institutional perspectives and on different degrees of trust in the judgment of judges, prosecutors, the Sentencing Commission, and Congress. No agreement on whether Booker has bettered or worsened the system can be achieved until agreement exists on priorities among the purposes of sentencing and the goals of sentencing reform. Both this lack of agreement and an absence of needed data make consensus on Booker's effects on important sentencing goals, such as reduction of unwarranted disparity, unlikely in the near future. Similarly, lack of baseline data before Booker on the effectiveness of federal sentencing at crime control makes before-after comparisons impossible. Despite these limitations, research provides a sounder framework for policy making than do anecdotes or speculation and sets valuable empirical parameters for the federal sentencing policy debate. [source] The Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions and Legal Rules with Classification TreesJOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, Issue 2 2010Jonathan P. Kastellec A key question in the quantitative study of legal rules and judicial decision making is the structure of the relationship between case facts and case outcomes. Legal doctrine and legal rules are general attempts to define this relationship. This article summarizes and utilizes a statistical method relatively unexplored in political science and legal scholarship,classification trees,that offers a flexible way to study legal doctrine. I argue that this method, while not replacing traditional statistical tools for studying judicial decisions, can better capture many aspects of the relationship between case facts and case outcomes. To illustrate the method's advantages, I conduct classification tree analyses of search and seizure cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and confession cases decided by the courts of appeals. These analyses illustrate the ability of classification trees to increase our understanding of legal rules and legal doctrine. [source] The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized PolityJOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, Issue 3 2007James L. Gibson Conventional political science wisdom holds that contemporary American politics is characterized by deep and profound partisan and ideological divisions. Unanswered is the question of whether those divisions have spilled over into threats to the legitimacy of American political institutions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court. Since the Court is often intimately involved in making policy in many issue areas that divide Americans,including the contested 2000 presidential election,it is reasonable to hypothesize that loyalty toward the institution depends on policy and/or ideological agreement and partisanship. Using data stretching from 1987 through 2005, the analysis reveals that Court support among the American people has not declined, nor is it connected to partisan and ideological identifications. Instead, support is embedded within a larger set of relatively stable democratic values. Institutional legitimacy may not be obdurate, but it does not seem to be caught up in the divisiveness that characterizes so much of American politics,at least not at present. [source] Beginning to Write Separately: The Origins and Development of Concurring Judicial OpinionsJOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY, Issue 2 2010CHARLES C. TURNER Introduction While political scientists and legal academics have both evinced a "fascination with disagreement on courts,"1 this scholarly concentration on conflict rather than consensus has tended to focus on dissent and dissenting opinions. As far as we can tell, there is no authoritative history of concurring opinions in the U.S. Supreme Court. This article is a first effort to correct that oversight by examining developments and change in concurring behavior from the founding through the White Court (1921). This period covers the emergence of an institutionally independent national judicial branch and ends before the start of the modern, policy-making Court era, which we argue begins with the Taft Court and the creation of a fully discretionary docket. [source] The Influence of the Dartmouth College Case on the American Law of Educational CharitiesJOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY, Issue 1 2007ELIZABETH BRAND MONROE One of the important features of American history has been the availability of higher education. Religious toleration, low capitalization costs, few educational impediments, public interest and commitment, and ready corporate status made the foundation of colleges and universities a common event in early nineteenth-century America.1 By the time of the Revolution Americans had founded ten colleges; by 1800, twenty-four; by 1820, thirty-eight; and by the Civil War, 232, of which 104 have survived.2 Although the earliest colleges had religious affiliations, with the founding of the University of Georgia in 1785, states also began providing directly for higher education. But the creation of these institutions led to disputes within them over curricula and governance. How the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a seemingly minor political dispute involving the governance of a small New Hampshire college would determine not only that college's relationship to state and federal government, but also that of all other corporations.3 [source] "A More Perfect Union": Ableman v. Booth and the Culmination of Federal SovereigntyJOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY, Issue 2 2003Michael J. C. Taylor The discourse over federal versus state jurisdiction was ingrained into American politics at the nation's inception. It has been the premise of our most historically significant rivalries,between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne. Though this debate remains a contentious topic in contemporary political discourse, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the legal controversy on the eve of America's bloodiest conflagration. Unanimously, the Court ruled that the federal union was of greater importance than the authority of the individual states. The 1859 Ableman v. Booth1 decision was wrought from moral controversy, legal precedent, and political necessity, coupled with the full force of law, and has endured as a compelling pronouncement on the need for continuity and stability in uncertain times. [source] Admiralty Law and Neutrality Policy in the 1790s: An Example of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive CooperationJOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY, Issue 1 2000Elliott Ashkenazi The subject of admiralty law may have lost much of its luster over the years, but during the first decades of the nation's existence this branch of the law provided a vehicle for establishing foreign policy principles that helped protect the new nation. The admiralty cases that reached the U.S. Supreme Court in the mid-1790s were important to administration policy in the realm of foreign affairs and to the Court's own development as an independent arm of the national government. [source] Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of AppealsLAW & POLICY, Issue 3 2006MARK S. HURWITZ The manner in which agenda change occurs demonstrates how institutional arrangements influence agenda priorities in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. A neo-institutional theoretic perspective is employed to examine the dynamics of agenda formation in these courts. The article finds that the Supreme Court's agenda choices influence the decisions of litigants, interest groups, and lawyers to appeal certain cases to the Courts of Appeals. While the Supreme Court's agenda primarily is influenced by internal factors, it is constrained by agenda changes in the appeals courts. Critically, it is shown that these federal appellate courts exist within an endogenous system with respect to agenda formation, as both courts respond to agenda changes made in the other over time. [source] Judicial Waivers of Parental Consent for Abortion: Tennessee's Troubles Putting Policy into Practice,LAW & POLICY, Issue 3 2005HELENA SILVERSTEIN According to the U.S. Supreme Court, minors seeking abortions are entitled to petition for relief from state-mandated parental consent. To facilitate the actualization of this right, Tennessee included procedural mechanisms that go beyond those in effect in most states in its parental consent statute. This paper examines whether these additional mechanisms allow Tennessee to succeed where other states have failed. Our findings indicate that these mechanisms mitigate to some extent the sort of implementation failure observed in other states. However, the magnitude of this mitigation is not sufficient to establish that parental consent statutes can be implemented in accordance with Supreme Court requirements. [source] Presidents, Political Regimes, and Contentious Supreme Court Nominations: A Historical Institutional ModelLAW & SOCIAL INQUIRY, Issue 4 2007Kevin J. McMahon Before the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, scholars consistently pointed to the presence of divided government as an underlying reason for conflict in the confirmation process for U.S. Supreme Court nominees. However, the importance of party unity and coalition-building appointments,each of which highlights the role of the president in the process,should not be underestimated in these confirmation battles. Moreover, an examination of the sixty twentieth-century nominations reveals that a presidency-focused political regimes model provides significant explanatory force for understanding when and what types of nominees are likely to face the most resistance in the Senate. It does so by incorporating Stephen Skowronek's analytical framework for understanding presidential authority to explain how and why different periods of political time affect presidential attempts to shape the U.S. Supreme Court through appointments. In turn, the model places recent conflict in the confirmation process in historical context. [source] Once again, the Supreme Court takes on class action arbitrationALTERNATIVES TO THE HIGH COST OF LITIGATION, Issue 10 2009Russ Bleemer What the amicus filers are telling the U.S. Supreme Court in advance of next month's arguments in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., an arbitration class action case. [source] Thankful for unanswered prayers?ALTERNATIVES TO THE HIGH COST OF LITIGATION, Issue 9 2009Unconscionability, equilibrium' Is the U.S. Supreme Court putting the effectiveness of arbitration processes at risk by declining to rule on unconscionability? Donald R. Philbin Jr., of San Antonio, sorts out the effects of the Court's arbitration jurisprudence-and avoidance. [source] The amicus view: What they're saying about Hall Street Associates, and whyALTERNATIVES TO THE HIGH COST OF LITIGATION, Issue 10 2007Russ Bleemer Excerpts are provided from each of the five friend-of-the-court briefs in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, which is to be argued this month in the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the filers' interests in the case. The Court also takes another arbitration case for the current term, and the American Arbitration Association issues new mediation rules [source] Early Twentieth-Century Racial Discrimination Cases in State Supreme CourtsPOLITICS & POLICY, Issue 6 2009FRANCINE S. ROMERO An aspect of civil rights litigation receiving scant scholarly attention is the response of state supreme courts to racial discrimination claims in the early twentieth century. While scholarship on general social context suggests claims would find more support in non-southern courts and in the later years of the period, this has not been systematically investigated. Furthermore, while the literature on the U.S. Supreme Court establishes variance patterns by discrimination type, they cannot necessarily be extrapolated to state outcomes. I show that since the predictive utility of frameworks "borrowed" from other studies is dubious in this context, these state cases demand their own unique investigation and understanding. The assessment of two key clusters of cases offered here suggests distinct patterns in southern jury discrimination and northern public accommodations decisions. In the former, claims were routinely denied, with U.S. Supreme Court precedent occasionally used to overturn a conviction. In the latter, plaintiffs relying on state civil rights statutes were mostly successful. Un aspecto del litigio por los derechos civiles que recibe escasa atención académica es la respuesta de la Suprema Corte estatal a los reclamos por discriminación racial a principios del siglo XX. Aunque los estudios del contexto social general sugieren que los reclamos encontrarían mayor apoyo en cortes no-sureñas, en los años posteriores a dicho periodo, esto no ha sido sistemáticamente investigado. Además, aunque la literatura sobre la Suprema Corte de Justicia establece diferentes patrones por tipo de discriminación, estos no pueden ser necesariamente extrapolados al nivel de resultados estatales. Demuestro que dado que la utilidad predictiva de esquemas "prestados" de otros estudios es discutible en este contexto, estos casos estatales requieren su propia investigación e interpretación. La evaluación de dos grupos claves de casos propuestos aquí sugiere patrones distintivos en la discriminación de los jurados sureños y las decisiones de "public accommodations" norteñas. En el primero, los reclamos fueron rutinariamente rechazados, ocasionalmente invocando precedente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia para darle vuelta a la condena. En el segundo grupo, los demandantes que descansaron su caso en los estatutos estatales sobre los derechos civiles en su mayoría tuvieron éxito. [source] Minority Representation and Majority-Minority Districts after Shaw v. Reno: Legal Challenges, Empirical Evidence and Alternative ApproachesPOLITICS & POLICY, Issue 2 2001Michael A. Smith One of the most vexing problems of American federalism is the process by which representatives get elected from the respective states. This paper discusses the muddled precedent on gerrymandering established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno and upheld in subsequent cases. After conditionally upholding gerrymandering for political purposes in Davis v. Bandemer, the Court now rejects racial gerrymandering if the resulting districts have a particularly contorted appearance on a map. These rulings lack a clear definition of representation, though the Court has hinted that it may be necessary to move beyond the stark procedural view of one-person, one-vote. Although the concept of substantive representation may seem difficult to apply at first, it may be operationalized by considering the chances that a voter or coalition has of influencing an election. Given the obvious preferences of legislators and parties for "safe seats," along with this vague Court precedent, voters may be tempted to refer districting controversies to nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions. [source] When States Discriminate: The Non-uniform Tax Treatment of Municipal Bond InterestPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, Issue 3 2009Dwight V. Denison There is a long history of states using tax systems to encourage residents to invest in bonds issued by jurisdictions within their state. This preferential or discriminatory tax treatment was ruled unconstitutional in 2006 by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The Kentucky court decision, which sets the stage for this essay, was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. This essay addresses the possible implications of this and similar discriminatory tax policies. Such discriminatory policies are the foundation of the municipal bond market, and altering the practice would have significant implications for revenue collections and borrowing costs in most states and localities. While the Supreme Court's position has been rendered, the case has caused policy makers and administrators to scrutinize discriminatory tax policies and their impact on budgets and borrowing costs. [source] Confirmation Politics and The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito NominationAMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, Issue 1 2009James L. Gibson Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence (2003a, 2003b, 2005) expound the theory of positivity bias in their analysis of the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore. This theory asserts that preexisting institutional loyalty shapes perceptions of and judgments about court decisions and events. In this article, we use the theory of positivity bias to investigate the preferences of Americans regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. More specifically, from the theory of positivity bias, we derive the hypothesis that preferences on the Alito confirmation are shaped by anterior commitments to the Supreme Court. Based on an analysis of a national panel survey, we find that those who have a high level of loyalty toward the Supreme Court rely much more heavily on what we term judiciousness,in contrast to ideology, policy, and partisanship,in forming their opinions on whether to confirm Alito. Thus, institutional loyalty provides a decisive frame through which Americans view the activity of their Supreme Court. [source] Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme CourtAMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, Issue 2 2003James L. Gibson It is conventional in research on the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court to rely on a survey question asking about confidence in the leaders of the Court to indicate something about the esteem with which that institution is regarded by the American people. The purpose of this article is to investigate the validity of this measure. Based on a nationally representative survey conducted in 2001, we compare confidence with several different measures of Court legitimacy. Our findings indicate that the confidence replies seem to reflect both short-term and long-term judgments about the Court, with the greater influence coming from satisfaction with how the Court is performing at the moment. We suggest a new set of indicators for measuring the legitimacy of the Court and offer some evidence on the structure of the variance in these items. [source] Race, income, and perceptions of the U.S. court systemBEHAVIORAL SCIENCES & THE LAW, Issue 2 2001Ph.D., Richard R. W. Brooks J.D. This article reports on the effect of income within race on African Americans' perception of the courts. Our findings are somewhat consistent with the previous research on black middle-class relative dissatisfaction with various American institutions. That is, unlike whites and Latirios in our study, we find that higher-income African Americans are more skeptical of the notion that blacks receive equal treatment in the courts. This same group also reported less confidence in the court's handling of specific types of cases (e.g., civil, criminal and juvenile delinquency cases.) However, better off blacks were more likely than poor blacks to have confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court and community courts. These findings point a more complex account of African American perceptions of the courts, an account that draws a distinction between diffused and specific support of the courts. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] On Being a Lone DissenterJOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 9 2005Donald Granberg Asch's (1956) research on group pressure to conform implied that it is difficult to be a lone dissenter. Extending this to the analysis of voting patterns in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1953-2001 terms, it was found that of 4,178 decisions, the 8-1 split was the least common (10%). Unanimous decisions were most common (35%), followed by 5-4 splits (21%), 6-3 splits (20%), and 7-2 splits (14%). Large differences were found among the 29 Justices serving during this period as to how often they were lone dissenters, led by Justice William Douglas, who issued lone dissents on about 6% of the decisions on which he voted. [source] Damned If You Do and Damned If You Don't: Title VII and Public Employee Promotion Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact LitigationPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, Issue 4 2010Robert N. Roberts What has been the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Ricci v. Destefano on the selection and promotion practices of public employers?; Relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Service Board of New Haven, Connecticut, had engaged in Title VII disparate treatment discrimination by refusing to certify the results of a promotion examination that led, in turn, to a disparate impact on African American firefighters. To limit the discretion of public employers to disregard such selection and promotion exam results, the Ricci majority held that a public employer must "have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to the take the race-conscious discriminatory action." This article argues that the decision effectively prohibits public employers from rejecting the results of selection and promotion instruments, even though there is evidence that screening instruments inequitably affect protected groups. It also forces public employers to become more careful in developing selection and promotion examinations or face the possibility of costly Title VII litigation. [source] | ||||||||||||||||