scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "Majority opinion published in 1977"




Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The abortion decisionis are beginning to exemplify the increasingly familiar problems in the use of judicial review as a means of effecting social change; mobilization of extreme opposition and steady erosion of the Court's intent by means of collateral deterrence.
Abstract: Between January 1973 and July 1976, the United States Supreme Court handed down three major decisions concerning abortion-two in 1973 and one in 1976. The 1973 decrees struck down most state laws restricting pregnancy termination and ruled that, until after the first trimester, the decision to have an abortion rests with the wvoman and her physician. The Court said that between the beginning of the fourth month of pregnancy and fetal viability (approximately six moinths gestatioi) state regulation should be concerned with measures designed to preserve the mother's health but should not be needlessly restrictive. After viability, the state was held justified in regulating and even proscribing abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. The Court nullified state statutes limiting the perfolrmance of abortions to hospitals; invalidated abortion review committees; and abrogated restrictions on migration between states for purposes of abortion. In 1976 the Court specifically refused to legitimate action by interested parties-such as the woman's husband or parents-to veto her free access to abortion. Implementation of these judicial rulings is turning out to be an arduous process, analogous in many ways to implementation of the earlier decisions of the US Supreme Court on school desegregation. The abortion decisionis are beginning to exemplify the increasingly familiar problems inivolved in the use of judicial review as a means of effecting social change; mobilization of extreme opposition and steady erosion of the Court's intent by means of collateral deterrence.'

27 citations


Book
01 Jan 1977
TL;DR: Virtually every significant Supreme Court decision concerning religious freedom and separation of church and state is presented here as discussed by the authors, where the authors present a summary of the major decisions concerning these issues.
Abstract: Virtually every significant Supreme Court decision concerning religious freedom and separation of church and state is presented here.

16 citations


Book
01 Jan 1977
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on the United States Supreme Court's decision in "Brown v. Board of Education" and explore the Court's decisions in other areas of race relations in order to provide the larger strategic context within which "Brown" and its progeny were decided.
Abstract: Positing the hypothesis that the United States Supreme Court makes rather than finds the law, this analysis of race relations cases provides a model by which to examine Court strategies.While the primary focus of the study is on "Brown v. Board of Education," " "which was central to the social revolution started by the Court in its 1954 and 1955 rulings and which continued, perhaps more consciously, thereafter, this is not simply another book about the School Desegregation Cases of 1954 and 1955. Ranging back to 1883, the authors summarize in an early chapter the cases before "Brown. "Then, after dealing with "Brown," " "the authors proceed topically to explore the Court s rulings in other areas of race relations in order to provide the larger strategic context within which "Brown "and its progeny were decided.In addressing the practical question of Supreme Court behavior in a long line of desegregation cases, the authors look at the entire pattern of the Court s strategy and behavior, not only the cases the Court decided with full opinions but also its summary actions and its refusals to grant review.Political scientists, historians, constitutional lawyers, jurists, and interested general readers will find this book essential to an understanding of the evolution of American law in the matter of race relations. It may well provide a model for future studies of Supreme Court strategies in other areas."

9 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The anti-inflation decision of the Supreme Court of Canada as discussed by the authors was the most important decision since becoming Canada's final Court of Appeal and has been widely cited as one of the seminal decisions in the history of Canadian federalism.
Abstract: . The Supreme Court's decision upholding the Anti-Inflation Act may have been the Court's most important decision since becoming Canada's final Court of Appeal. While the federal government's wage and price control policy escaped a judicial veto, the Court's decision gave that policy only a temporary constitutional mandate. In so doing, the Court laid to rest, for the time being, any possibility that the national peace, order and good government power was to be dramatically expanded, but opened up the possibility of fairly easy access to the emergency use of the power in peacetime. By examining this decision in the context of the political and legal strategies of the parties, we may gain some valuable insights into the nature of judicial review in Canada. Among other things the case demonstrates the limited importance of judicial review in the politics of Canadian federalism. The Court's decision signals that a constitutional revolution is not about to occur, but the decision itself is not the major factor in preventing a centralizing shift in the balance of power. In fact the Supreme Court's decision reflects fairly accurately the balance of political power in the country. But while the case reveals how political the process of judicial review can be in Canada, still the end product of the process—the opinions of the judges—continues to be cast in a relatively legalistic' style. The Court may adjudicate constitutional disputes but it is not about to dispense constitutional wisdom. The case also teaches us something about the relative importance of economic and judicial resources in the political process. The main lesson is clear: bodi politicians and interest groups will risk losses in terms of long-run constitutional doctrine in order to secure important short-run policy objectives.

6 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyze one norm that members of the United States Supreme Court sometimes seem to invoke on impbrtant decisions that of unanimity in rendering a decision.
Abstract: In this article, we shall analyze one norm that members of the United States Supreme Court sometimes seem to invoke on impbrtant decisions that of unanimity in rendering a decision. Although a decision is formally rendered by a simple majority of the nine Justices, it appears that on occasion members of the Court act as if a unanimous decision were required. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak (1974b) note that \"the Court tends to congeal into a strong or unanimous majority in major constitutional cases,\" even when opinion within the Court may really be divided. They cite as an example the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation decision in which the Court split 6-3 in its pre-ruling deliberations only to present a unanimous ruling to the nation. 1

5 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper was originally delivered in July of 1975, within a few weeks of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody as mentioned in this paper, which appeared to turn sharply away from the proposition that the EEOC guidelines are to be applied mechanically as the only legal touchstone of the job relatedness of a test.
Abstract: This paper was originally delivered in July of 1975, within a few weeks of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody. The law, of course, does not stand still. Less than a year after the Albemarle decision, the Supreme Court's decision in Washington v. Davis appeared to turn sharply away from the proposition that the EEOC guidelines are to be applied mechanically as the only legal touchstone of the job relatedness of a test. The Washington decision contains many obscurities and ambiguities, and at the time of writing (October 1976) it appears that at least one more Supreme Court case will be necessary in order to clarify this question. Though the present paper is outdated in some respects because of the Washington decision, it is hoped that it will continue to be of interest for the light it may shed on the interrelationship between the practice of industrial psychology and the judicial process in operation.

5 citations





Journal ArticleDOI
Ray O. Werner1
TL;DR: A review of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court over the past seven terms, 1968-1974, strengthened those premises and outlines the new constraints that modern marketing faces as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: N THE PAST, reviews of the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court affecting marketing have been premised on two contentions: 1. That what the Supreme Court does is of vital concern to contemporary marketers (the contours of marketing organizations and operations being affected by its decisions in important ways). 2. That Supreme Court decisions are binding upon business with the same force and generality as if the Court's holdings were legislative enactments or executive decrees.1 A review of the decisions of the Supreme Court over the past seven terms, 1968-1974, strengthens those premises and outlines the new constraints that modern marketing faces. Moreover, such an analysis reveals not only that organizational structure and operational practices have experienced modifications, but also that extensive and important alterations have occurred in the procedural rules and regulations facing marketing organizations. Territorial Allocations Systems









Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the reviewer and the writer should approach an opinion from the same vantage point, and a common approach would produce continuity, and thus yield meaningful analyses to the readerships of both opinions and law reviews.
Abstract: The American law review constantly subjects the work of appellate courts to intense, critical scrutiny, to a jurisprudential dissection of our opinions, to a microscopic examination of the jural sinews and fibers that compose the body of our published work. Law reviews indeed constitute an extremely valuable, extra-judicial laboratory in which our various specimens are meticulously studied and then evaluated as healthy or pathological. Any judge sensitive to the activity or reputation of his or her court should welcome the diagnosis. In a system of government where the executive and legislative branches are constantly subject to public review at the ballot box, but where appellate judges are lifetime or long-term, it is the law review that serves as an informal check and balance; informal and unstructured, to be sure, but nevertheless, a respectable and ever-present force. In this spirit, it becomes appropriate to discuss rules and measures by which judicial opinions should be evaluated. I do not suggest anything revolutionary. Guidelines and standards for reviewing an opinion are the same as those utilized in writing an opinion. For this reason, I believe that the writer and the reviewer should approach an opinion from the same vantage point. A common approach would produce continuity, and thus yield meaningful analyses to the readerships of both opinions and law reviews. PDF scan posted with permission of the Duquesne Law Review.

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the fundamental issues of procedural fairness that must be considered in evaluating the labor arbitration process are addressed, and the role of a court in these cases is defined and analyzed.
Abstract: This article addresses the fundamental issues of procedural fairness that must be considered in evaluating the labor arbitration process. The Supreme Court has given that process significant autonomy, even to decide disputes that may also constitute statutory violations. What then is the role of a court in these cases? The Supreme Court suggested that a court should give respect to arbitral awards if the process employed was fundamentally fair. This article articulates the elements needed within the labor arbitration process in order to meet the Court’s test.