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.

Issue Divisions and US Supreme Court Decision Making

Abstract: Majority opinions are the most important output of the US Supreme Court, not only disposing the instant case but also providing guidance for other institutions, lower courts, and litigants as to the state of the law. The authoring of dissenting opinions, though, is frequently regarded as deleterious to the Court’s institutional legitimacy and the efficacy of the majority opinion. Leveraging the content of all Court opinions between 1979 and 2009, I argue dissenting justices use dissenting opinions to strategically alter the issue dimensions addressed in the majority opinion. An examination of the effect of separate opinion content on majority opinions indicates dissenting opinions yield majority opinions addressing a greater number of topics, and I provide evidence that the dynamic is driven by the strategic behavior of dissenting justices seeking to realign the Court.

Age and Tenure of the Justices and Productivity of the U.S. Supreme Court: Are Term Limits Necessary?

Abstract: This Article examines the relationship between the productivity of the U.S. Supreme Court and the age and tenure of the Supreme Court Justices. The motivation for this Article is the Supreme Court Renewal Act of 2005 (SCRA) and other recent proposals to impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices. The authors of the SCRA and others suggest that term limits are necessary because, inter alia, increased longevity and terms of service of the Justices have resulted in a decline in the productivity of the Court as measured by the number of cases accepted for review and the number of opinions issued per term. On the whole, the empirical findings of this Article do not provide clear support for this assertion.

The Supreme Court and American Democracy

Abstract: Written expressly for a student audience, this core text has a non-ideological theme - the tension between the Supreme Court's power of judicial review and the democratic, majoritarian features of American government. This allows the reader to examine the place of the Court in the broader context of American society and the American system of democratic self-government. Seven case studies show constitutional litigation in action.

Judicial Review and Political Accountability: The Case of the High Court of Justice in Israel*

Abstract: The inter-relation between government policies, public opinion and court decisions are the subject of intense discussion in academic literature. Constitutional theorists maintain that courts are required to defend individual rights, especially minority rights. Courts are also expected to refrain from excessive interference in decision-making processes conducted by the other two branches of government. Both these themes are derived from the assumption that courts, unlike the legislature and the executive branch, are not representative institutions. They are not required to reflect the preferences of the majority in their decisions. Rather, the reverse is expected: to confront decisions which endanger the rights of minorities. The “success” of courts in maintaining their institutional autonomy — according to this view — is evaluated by their ability to withstand political pressures and effect their counter-majoritarian role.Political scientists, on the other hand, are concerned with the extent to which courts in fact fulfill this counter-majoritarian role. Some argue that the counter-majoritarian function of the court is no more than a doctrinal aspiration, perhaps even a myth. Constitutional courts, they argue, serve more to legitimize socio-political reforms and broader cultural propensities which were previously endorsed by the political establishment and public opinion, than to confront majoritarian decisions. Others maintain that, while courts are not wholly insulated from public opinion, they still manage, on many occasions, to retain their institutional autonomy vis-a-vis political pressures.