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.

Getting Serious About An International Criminal Court

Abstract: The purpose of Part I of this article is to shed light (to the extent possible without violating post-government employment privileges) on the evolution of the U.S. Governments' position from one of cautious skepticism to qualified support for the establishment of an ICC. Part II of this article analyzes and suggests revisions to the proposed statue for an ICC recently prepared by the UN International Law Commission ("ILC").

Judges on judging : views from the bench

Abstract: Let the Judges tell your students how they reach a verdict. Thoroughly revised, with expanded historical and international coverage, "Judges on Judging" offers insights into the judicial philosophies and political views of those on the bench. In this wide-ranging collection, Supreme Court justices, as well as lower federal and state court judges, discuss the judicial process, constitutional and statutory interpretation, judicial federalism, and the role of the judiciary. New selections come from such distinguished jurists as Judge Jerome Frank (U.S. Court of Appeals), Judge D. Brock Hornby (U.S. District Court), Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. (Supreme Court of the United States), Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo (Supreme Court of the United States), and Chief Justice Aharon Barak (Supreme Court of Israel). With updated introductions to provide students with necessary thematic and historical context, this book is the perfect supplement to present a nuanced view of the judiciary.

An Empirical Study of Amici Curiae in Federal Court: A Fine Balance of Access, Efficiency, and Adversarialism

Abstract: During a recent telephone conversation, a colleague and I discussed whether the United States Supreme Court bears some resemblance to a quasi administrative agency. Of course, the Supreme Court is an Article III court, not an administrative agency. Yet, in more than 50% of the cases on the Court's docket, non parties are permitted to offer legal and/or factual information to supplement the legal and factual arguments made by the parties to the suit. Such non party participants, commonly referred to as amicus curiae - or friends of the court, frequently raise new arguments that are totally absent from the parties' briefs. Moreover, the procedural requirements for permission to participate as an amicus are very lenient - at times virtually non existent. The Court's willingness to allow such non party participation and consider the information offered by such participants is more akin to the notice and comment period of administrative rule making than the party controlled adversarial model which we typically consider essential to our judicial system. This article considers why the system allows amicus curiae this privileged position and whether we should be rethinking the procedural mechanisms which apply to friend of the court briefs.

A Strategic Court and National Security: Comparative Lessons from the Israeli Case

Abstract: This article analyzes decision making in national security cases on the Israeli Supreme Court and draws broader comparative conclusions. In the post-9/11 era, security has topped the national agendas in numerous established democracies, with repercussions involving their courts. Analyses of decision making on national security in Western judiciaries may benefit from lessons from the Israeli Court, which has been a pivotal player in this domain. A formal model analyzes how internal court institutions plus the rationality of individual justices are conducive to strategic Court behavior. Predictions are tested empirically using an original database with security decisions from 1997 to 2004. The findings indicate that constitutional design, Court leadership, ideology of the ruling coalition and interest group activity have influenced decisions of the Israeli Court on national defense. This study builds on and expands existing scholarship on the complex links among law, politics, and national security in Israel and beyond.

Historical consensual norms in the High Court

Abstract: There is a substantial political-science literature that discusses the notion of consensual norms in the US Supreme Court. Most of this literature assumes that consensual norms exist, rather than proving their existence. Caldeira and Zorn ( American Journal of Political Science 42: 874-902, 1998) use the method of cointegration developed in econometric time-series analysis to prove the existence of a single consensual norm in the US Supreme Court. This study applies cointegration analysis to historical time-series data on dissenting and single judgments to examine whether there is a single consensual norm in the High Court of Australia. The study finds that a single consensual norm does not underlie decision making in the High Court. This result is explained on the basis that the institutions underpinning decision making and the approach to decision making are different between the Australian High Court and the US Supreme Court.