scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper found that the Warren Court tended to suppress issues in civil rights and civil liberties cases, rather than expand them, and that the justices developed new issues in about one-fourth of all cases, while they suppressed issues that had been fully briefed and argued in over half of the cases.
Abstract: While justices have considerable discretion in the picking and choosing between cases in the creation of their agenda, how much discretion do they exercise in the picking and choosing between the issues that were presented by the parties, or even in developing new issues? Given the Warren Court's reputation for articulating broad rules that went beyond the particular circumstances of an individual case, especially in the area of civil rights and liberties, we would expect that this issue fluidity, particulary the expansion of issues, occurred with some frequency during this era. With an analysis of a random sample of 200 cases from the Warren Court, I found that the justices developed new issues in about one-fourth of all cases, while they suppressed issues that had been fully briefed and argued in over half of all cases. In addition, surprisingly, the Warren Court tended to suppress issues in civil rights and civil liberties cases, rather than expand them.

15 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its Advisory Opinion on Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) in respect of Kosovo.
Abstract: On 22 July the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its Advisory Opinion on Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) in respect of Kosovo. There is a wide range of legal questions related to Kosovo’s UDI. However, the ICJ decided by way of a narrow interpretation of the General Assembly’s request to focus only on prohibitive rules. The Court came to the conclusion that the UDI did not violate international law. While this result is defendable, the way the Court got there is problematic. The Court missed its opportunity to provide legal guidance in fields of secession and self-determination. This article shall give a first overview of the Court’s reasoning.

15 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article found that the Court is generally representa- tive of mass opinion and that most citizens have accurate perceptions of the Court, but they also found that people are substantially more likely to misperceive the Court as being too liberal than too conservative.
Abstract: Do people accurately perceive the Supreme Court's ideology in relation to their own positions? Which types of people are most likely to misperceive? Answering these questions is important for understanding the basis of public support for the Supreme Court. To do so requires plac- ing the public and the Supreme Court on a common ideological scale. This study represents the first attempt to do so. We ask respondents how they would have voted on a set of cases recently decided by the Court, meaning that we can generate a comparable set of ideal points for both masses and elites in a common space. We find that the Court is generally representa- tive of mass opinion and that most citizens have accurate perceptions of the Court. However, we also find that people are substantially more likely to misperceive the Court as being too liberal than too conservative.

15 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: The International Criminal Court has a long track record of failure to prevent atrocities and may even sometimes aggravate the conditions that lead to them and neither side of the debate has mustered sufficient useful empirical support for its position as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Supporters of the International Criminal Court have claimed that the Court is well-suited to preventing the occurrence of humanitarian atrocities. They often argue that the Court will, for instance, have a general deterrent effect and serve to reinforce ethical norms against genocide and war crimes. Critics, on the other hand, contend that the Court will fail to prevent atrocities and may even sometimes aggravate the conditions that lead to them. Neither side of the debate has mustered sufficient useful empirical support for its position. Moreover, it is unlikely that scholars will, in the near term, produce evidence credible enough to actually inform countries' decisions about how to relate to the Court. The Court has a number of historically novel characteristics and a short track record. Any rigorous attempt to calculate the Court's expected preventive impact is stymied by a number of "wild card" variables, any one of which might have an unforeseeably large effect. In light of such difficulties, persistent arguments about this subject reveal more about commentators' commitments to internationalism or sovereigntism than they reveal about the Court. Prevention discourse has so far generally served merely as a proxy for broader policy commitments.

15 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
International law
52K papers, 556.6K citations
76% related
Voting
33.6K papers, 791.3K citations
76% related
Politics
263.7K papers, 5.3M citations
75% related
Democracy
108.6K papers, 2.3M citations
75% related
Legitimacy
26.1K papers, 565.9K citations
75% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202313
202238
202114
202027
201923
201820