Showing papers on "Majority opinion published in 1984"

The spiral of silence: Public opinion, our social skin

Abstract: In this work, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann examines public opinion as a form of social control in which individuals, almost instinctively sensing the opinions of those around them, shape their behaviour to prevailing attitudes about what is acceptable. For the second edition, Noelle-Neumann has added three new chapters: the first discusses new discoveries in the history of public opinion; the second continues the author's efforts to construct a comprehensive theory of public opinion, addressing criticisms and defences of her "spiral of silence" theory that have appeared since 1980; the third offers a concise and updated summary of the book's arguments.

The Supreme Court and Policy Legitimation: Experimental Tests

Abstract: This article examines the legitimacy-conferring potential of the U.S. Supreme Court. Legitimacy-conferring potential is conceptualized as the Court's ability, through mere endorsement of a particular policy, to elevate mass acceptance of that policy. The study reports the results of three experiments utilizing a split-ballot design where, in general, one group is given a version of an issue endorsed by the Supreme Court and a second group is given the same issue not endorsed by the Court. In two of the experiments a third attribution condition is used where an issue is endorsed by the Supreme Court as interpreter of the Constitution. Based on the analysis of 16 policy issues across three experiments, the Court does not appear to have the power to legitimate specific policies bearing its stamp of approval.

Public Opinion and Prison Policy: A Review

Abstract: at Albany. It is difficult to discern the appropriate role of public opinion in the development of policy about imprisonment. In a representative democracy, we expect that legislators and agency-based executives will be aware of and sensitive to the views of the public on issues within their domain of interest. On the other hand, few would endorse the practice of policy development that flows reactively from &dquo;poll watching&dquo; by public officials. In short, the improper use of public opinion data in policy development has been likened to the manner in which a drunk

The negotiation of involuntary civil commitment

Abstract: Involuntary commitment to mental hospitals has been a topic of scholarly interest for the last twenty years. That interest has resulted in dozens of studies which have informed the legal reform of many state commitment statutes. In this paper we analyze the organizational context in which the decision to commit takes place. Relying on observations of the commitment process in an urban setting, we discuss the negotiating among the actors involved in the decision to commit. Our data suggest that formal disposition to involuntarily commit accounts for only a small percentage of those held at the hospital against their will. Court procedures and professional persuasion are used to coerce citizens into "voluntary" stays at the hospital in order to avoid court proceedings. We conclude with some thoughts about the meaning of commitment rates in light of these findings. This study is about decision-making in a court of law. The court of law is the mental health court of a major metropolis, and the decision in question is whether to allow a hospital to confine someone unwillingly for mental illness. Scholars have been concerned with this decision-making process for well over twenty years and have sought to determine what rules or norms guide that process. In the court we studied we found that this process has many characteristics in common with decision-making in criminal court, the most important of which is the tendency to replace formal decisions with informal agreements. The key actors in the court setting work together to dispose of cases before they are formally presented to the judge. These actors, who include the public defender (PD), the state's attorney (SA), and social workers or other staff attached to the hospital, find a number of ways to dispose of cases. These include voluntary admissions and informal and

Consequences of Supreme Court Decisions Upholding Individual Constitutional Rights

Abstract: INTRODUCTION ............................................. 4 I. COMPLEXITIES OF MEASUREMENT ..................... 7 II. SOME ILLUSTRATIONS PRIOR TO 1935 .................. 12 A. The Post-Civil War Period ......................... 12 B. The \"Lochner\" Era ................................ 13 III. THE HUGHE, STONE, AND VINSON COURTS ........... 14 A. Rights of the Accused .............................. 15 1. Coerced Confessions ............................ 15 2. Appointed Counsel ............................. 15 a. Federal prosecutions ........................ 15 b. State prosecutions ........................... 16 B. Free Speech: Labor Picketing ....................... 17 C. Religious Freedom: Jehovah's Witnesses ............. 18 D. Company Towns ................................... 19 E. Racial Discrimination .............................. 19 1. Voting ......................................... 19 2. H ousing ....................................... 21 3. Education ..................................... 22 IV. THE WARREN COURT ................................... 25 A. Racial Separation ................................. 25 1. Segregation .................................... 25 2. M iscegenation .................................. 28

The Supreme Court looks at psychiatry.

Abstract: An analysis of the attitudes of the U.S. Supreme Court toward psychiatry, as expressed in the Court's major opinions on mental health law from 1975 to 1983, reveals significant discrepancies from case to case. The explanation for these puzzling shifts in attitude lies outside the realm of mental health law, in the justices ' aversion to judicial involvement in professional decision making. A close examination of the cases demonstrates the Court's willingness to alter its rhetoric about psychiatry to support this overriding end. Psychiatrists' understanding of the Court and advocacy for their own and their patients' interests must take this broader issue into account.

Issue Specialization as a Variable in Opinion Assignment on the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract: Is issue specialization another variable in opinion assignment on the United States Supreme Court? I examined the civil liberties cases of the Warren Court and found that issue specialization was usual and commonplace on the Court. It was present, however, in narrow issues (such as right to counsel) and not in civil liberties in general or even in somewhat broader issues (such as criminal defendant cases). I also discovered that Chief Justice Warren tended to select as issue specialists justices who had the same or similar ideological views as himself.

American State Supreme Court Justices, 1900-1970

Abstract: What are the paths that lead to the state supreme court bench? If we can identify these paths, can we then determine that they produce distinctive patterns in a court3 decision making? Based on a study of 694 judges who sat on 16selected American state supreme courts between 1900 and 1970, this article finds that the appellate judiciary was drawn from a variety of legal and political backgrounds rather than from any single career line. The judges came from both non-elite and elite law schools. About half had no substantial lower court judicial experience. Over one-third had been public prosecutors, another third had held other elective political office, and only a small minority had practiced in multilawyer big-city law firms. The article reports changes over time in these and other judicial characteristics (such CIS age, turnover, political party affiliations) and describes interstate differences. Few significant statistical relationships are found, however, between the background characteristics of judges and selected characteristics of state supreme court opinions.

Public Opinion, Polling, and Political Behavior:

Abstract: The advent of scientific public opinion polling gave democratic governance a new dimension. For the first time representatives could discern people's opinions on virtually any public issue. Despite this ability, three important questions remain. Are people adequately informed to consider the complex problems of modern government? Will they give their true opinions to a pollster? And even if these two conditions are satisfied, do representatives have to be bound by popular opinion? This article argues that modern public opinion analysts who use polling data tend to ignore these questions and instead focus on patterns of attitudes among various groups in the population. Before scientific polling became common, those who studied public opinion directed their efforts to the connection between behavioral manifestations of public opinion and the development of public policy. They worried more about the role of public opinion in the formulation of public policy. It turns out that much of the public opinion liter...

The Supreme Court's Promotion of Sexual Equality: A Case Study of Institutional Capacity

Abstract: It is well known that the United States Supreme Court has a policy-making role. But it is not clear that it has the appropriate competence for making policy choices. In the following examination of its sex-discrimination Equal Protection decisions between 1971 and 1981, Professor Morton finds that the Court has tended to abstract the sex-discrimination issue out of its normal legislative context of family support. The Court has allowed a rather narrow concern with individual rights to direct its inquiry and its use of social science data has lacked discrimination.

Purse, Sword, and Judgment: The Impact of Court Intervention on Social Policy.

Abstract: ABSTRACT The trend toward policymaking by the courts is reviewed, and the following four issues aro considered: (1) the direct and indirect impact of court intervention on social policy outcomes; (2) the effect of that intervention on the process of policymaking; (3) the extent to which court intervention has shaped the politics policymaking in a particular issue area; and (4) the issues, prioriti. political environment and organizational setting that determine court impact. A comparative study is made of two issue areas that typify, judicially mandated reform--prisons and special education. Distinctions between the two settings--school systems and penal institutions--are noted for organizational structure and operations, stated and Operational goals, and the relevance of professionalism. The emergence of-publicaaw litigation and the effects of judicial attempts to ref' , public institutions are .briefly considered, followed by deta .red analysis of four decisions (Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Jose P. v. Ambach, Rhem v. Malcolm, and Palmigiano v. Garrahy). Four major determinants of the impact of institutional reform litigation are identified: issue, organizational setting, professionalism, and environmental factors. A final chapter summarizes the evolution of the court's role in each of the four cases and suggests that the courts may behave much like the unaccountable bureaucracies they are called upon to reform. (CL)

Federalism and Supreme Court Review of Expansive State Court Decisions: A Response to Unfortunate Impressions

Abstract: This article addresses the Burger Supreme Court’s approach to federalism and concludes that the Court seems to be reordering federal-state judicial relations. This reordering appears to be occurring at the expense of both state autonomy and individual liberties, especially the rights of state criminal defendants.Although there certainly have been cases which suggest the Burger Court has a lopsided federalism, upon thorough analysis of these cases, this determination is shown to be incorrect. In fact, the present Court greatly respects state autonomy and the independence of state courts. Further, the Supremacy Clause requires the Court to serve as final arbiter of federal law to achieve uniformity, and if it is not clear that the state court based its decision upon an independent and adequate state ground, it is not unduly intrusive for the Supreme Court to either remand the case for clarification or assume the absence of such a ground.Ultimately, consideration of a number of controversial Burger Court cases reveals that the Court has, by its rulings, achieved a fine, delicate balance between state autonomy and federal supremacy. Recent criticism of the Court’s handling of state court decisions rest primarily on its disposition of Michigan v. Long and Montana v. Jackson, but both of these cases clearly demonstrate not only the Court’s respect for the independence of state courts but also its extreme frustration from dealing with ambiguous state decisions. To the extent that commentators view these cases as threats to state court autonomy and as a symbol of lopsided Burger Court federalism, they are responding only to “unfortunate impressions.”

The Supreme Court's Quest for Fair Politics.

Abstract: That attitude, Henry Fairlie opines, reflects not so much what politicians say and do, but rather a credibility gap caused by a "general lack of understanding of what politics can and should attempt to do."z The gap is not limited to the uneducated or those who have little time for politics, but even extends to a majority of the justices on the current Supreme Court. Writing for a six-man majority recently in Branti v. Finke/,3 Justice Stevens argued that the first amendment prohibits firing a county assistant public defender because of his political party affiliation. Reasonable persons can disagree with Justice Powell's dissent that there are "substantial governmental interests served by reasonable patronage,"4 but Stevens does not even consider whether politics should play a role in such appointments, despite the long history of patronage in the United States. The ease with which the courts dismiss the importance of politics reflects the curious irony that the only people who still believe the myth that courts are nonpolitical seem to be the judges themselves. Because of its important implications for the American political system, however, this is more than an amusing irony. It encourages a guardian ethics whereby judges impose change on the political system on behalf of some higher principle. It also enables the courts to advocate pure, majoritarian democracy at the expense of reflective, political democracy. Both facets emerge

The Nuclear Test Cases after Ten Years

Abstract: Kenneth Keith reflects in this article on the Nuclear Tests cases, in which he was counsel for New Zealand, which were initiated against France in the International Court of Justice. The article discusses the jurisdictional issues in the case, the political factors and pressures facing the Court and the 1973 and 1974 proceedings. Its emphasis is principally on questions of process and on the Court as an institution for the settlement of disputes; this paper is not concerned with the substance of the arguments. The author concludes by making several points on the wider context of nuclear disarmament, the effect of the proceedings on the Court, and whether the Court’s approach to the dispute was the correct one. Abstract by Juliet Bull.

The Use of Social Science by the United States Supreme Court in Cases Raising Husband-Wife and Parent-Child Legal Issues

Abstract: The Use of Social Science by the United States Supreme Court in Cases Raising Husband-Wife and Parent-Child Legal Issues