scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessBook

Constitutional Process: A Social Choice Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Making

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Stearns as mentioned in this paper analyzed the Supreme Court from the perspective of social choice theory and provided new insights into Supreme Court decision making that have profound implications for understanding the outcomes in a number of cases and the resulting doctrinal development within constitutional law.
Abstract
This is the first comprehensive analysis of how the collective nature of Supreme Court decision making affects the transformation of the justices' preferences into constitutional doctrine. Analyzing the Supreme Court from the perspective of social choice theory, Maxwell L. Stearns offers new insights into Supreme Court decision making that have profound implications for understanding the outcomes in a number of cases and the resulting doctrinal development within constitutional law which traditional analyses have proven ill-equipped to explain. The book models several important process-based Supreme Court rules, including outcome voting, the narrowest-grounds rule, stare decisis, and justiciability, with a particular emphasis on standing. These doctrines have each had a significant impact upon the evolution of modern constitutional law, including but not limited to the following areas: affirmative action, school desegregation, racial gerrymandering, obscenity, and abortion. Each model is presented in nontechnical language with several concrete illustrations drawn from recent Supreme Court case law. The book offers a new understanding of two apparently paradoxical situations: first, cases in which there are separate majorities on specific issues in the case that suggest, logically, that there should be a majority for the dissenting result; and second, cases in which discrete minorities--as opposed to the apparent majority--control the identification and resolution of dispositive case issues. In addition, the book sheds new light on why the Court employs stare decisis, even though the doctrine grounds the evolution of legal doctrine on the order in which cases are presented and decided, and on how the modern standing doctrine ameliorates the incentives for interest groups to time the litigation of cases in a way that will exert a disproportionate influence over the direction of constitutional doctrine. This book will appeal to scholars of the Supreme Court or judicial decision-making. It should also be of interest to students of social choice and of law and economics who have not previously considered the Supreme Court or constitutional law as fertile ground for their disciplines. Maxwell L. Stearns is Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead

TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigate the strategic revolution in the field of judicial politics and provide an intellectual history of the field, with special emphasis on why judicial specialists resisted strategic analysis for so long and why they are now turning to it in ever increasing numbers.
Posted Content

The Rules of Inference

TL;DR: The authors adapts the rules of inference used in the natural and social sciences to the special needs, theories, and data in legal scholarship, and explicate them with extensive illustrations from existing research.
Journal ArticleDOI

The New Judicial Politics of Legal Doctrine

TL;DR: The case-space model as discussed by the authors is an adaption of standard policy-space modeling, tailored for the distinguishing features of judicial policy making, allowing for ideological differences between judges while expressing those differences in terms of legal rules that partition fact-filled legal cases into different dispositions.
Journal ArticleDOI

William H. Riker and the Invention of Heresthetic(s)

TL;DR: Riker as discussed by the authors argued that "social choice theory may on examination by this [social choice] theory turn out to be a science with quite coherent rules." But he did not specify the rules of such a science.