Majority opinion

About: Majority opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 4107 publications have been published within this topic receiving 54845 citations. The topic is also known as: opinion of the court.

Science Court: A Case Study in Designing Discourse to Manage Policy Controversy

Abstract: Disagreement among experts is important to scientific progress, but it creates a dilemma for decision-makers who often depend on the authority those experts to render decisions. When experts disagree there seems to be no good way to incorporate expertise into decision-making. This study examines the "Science Court" proposed to facilitate the resolution of policy controversies involving expert disagreement. Science Court is examined here as a communication tool designed to (1) resolve disputes among experts so that (2) policy decision-making can proceed.The concern lies not so much in Science Court's design but with the rationale about designing communication tools to facilitate policy deliberations reflected in Science Court's design. Science Court The Science Court is an invention that makes a significant promise. It is designed to relieve decision-makers from the predicament of resolving differences in expert opinions when they are not themselves experts. Such an invention would be fortunate in an era where policy decisions are heavily dependent on expert authority but where expertise is fragmented among many competing disciplines. The Science Court, first proposed in the mid-1970s, is a procedure designed to improve the way experts and non-experts communicate in decision-making. The Science Court designers believed that the use of expertise in policy decision-making typically resulted in quarreling. This produced a"veil of disagreement" over factual matters that confused decisionmakers and invited opportunism by the powerful to influence decisions in their favor (Task Force, 1976). The court is designed to transform the escalation of expert claims and counter-claims in decision-making from quarreling that Mark Aakhus is an assistant professor of Communication at Rutgers University's School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies. His research addresses the role of communication and technology in learning, decision-making, and conflict-management. An earlier version of this article appeared in Argument and Values Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, edited by Sally Jack

Japan in the World: Opinion from Defeat to Success

Abstract: Japanese public opinion on foreign and defense policy warrants longitudinal analysis as an extreme case of change and lack of interest in international diplomatic and military activism. Data for the post-Occupation period through 1984 are examined for the effects of age, generation, and situation; more recent aggregate poll data are used to check for recent changes. Little support appears for strong, ongoing shifts from international passivism to activism, alignment to equidistance, dependence to autonomy, military minimization to effort, or lack of guiding principles. Generational effects are very modest after the early 1970s; age-group differences have more continuing importance. Majority opinion is sceptical about the merits of departures from the status quo, buttressed by countervailing minorities that support opposed directions of change.

Explaining the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Docket

Abstract: In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has decided fewer cases than at any other time in its recent history. Scholars and practitioners alike have criticized the drop in the Court’s plenary docket. Some even believe that the Court has reneged on its duty to clarify and unify the law. A host of studies examine potential reasons for the Court’s change in docket size but few rely on an empirical analysis of this change and no study examines the correlation between ideological homogeneity and docket size. In the first comprehensive study of its kind, the authors analyze ideological and contextual factors to determine the conditions that are most likely to influence the size of the plenary docket. Drawing on empirical data from every Supreme Court Term between 1940 and 2008, the authors find that both ideological and contextual factors have led to the Court’s declining plenary docket. First, a Court composed of Justices who largely share the same world view is likely to hear 42 more cases per Term than an ideologically-fractured Court. Second, internal and external mechanisms, such as membership change and mandatory jurisdiction are also important. Congress’s decision to remove much of the Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction is associated with the Court deciding roughly 54 fewer cases per Term. In short, the data suggest that ideology and context have led to a Supreme Court that decides fewer cases.The Court’s docket is not likely to increase significantly in the near future. Unless Congress expands the Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction or the President makes a series of unconstrained nominations to the Court that increase its ideological homogeneity the size of the Court’s docket will remain comparably small compared to the past. As other studies have shown, because the Court’s case selection process is an important aspect of the development of the law, this Article provides the basis for further normative and empirical evaluations of the Court’s plenary docket.

The Rehnquist Court and the Constitution

Abstract: In The Rehnquist Court and the Constitution, Tinsley Yarbrough provides a comprehensive look at today's Supreme Court Justices and their record-a study all the more valuable for the Court's mixed decisions and hard-to-categorize course. An accomplished biographer, Yarbrough offers incisive portraits of the nine who now sit on the high bench, and tellingly reviews their nomination hearings. He also explores the workings of the Court, ranging from the selection and role of the clerks to the work load (including the end-of-term "June crunch") and assignment of opinions. But the heart of the book is a systematic exploration of the Court's record in such fields as government power, economic regulation, and criminal justice. In decision after decision, the author discusses the various justices' opinions, arguments, and legal theories; he also offers his own analysis (including a sharp critique of the decision to allow the Paula Jones lawsuit to move forward). Like many writers on the Rehnquist Court, Yarbrough finds a general continuity with the past, shaded by a conservative outlook (especially in matters of criminal justice and affirmative action), but he identifies a significant departure in its rulings on economic regulation. Since 1937, he writes, the Supreme Court had generally adopted an expansive view of federal power over economic matters; the Rehnquist Court has reversed that trend. The Rehnquist Court has not launched an all-out assault on the Warren Court's precedents, as many conservatives hoped, but as Yarbrough shows it has embarked on important new departures. Thoughtful, wide-ranging, intelligently written, this book will stand as the finest study of the Rehnquist Court for years to come.