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.

Membership Change and Voting Change: An Analysis of the Rehnquist Court's 1986-1991 Terms

Abstract: This study examines the collective voting behavior of the United States Supreme Court in civil rights and liberties decisions for the 1986-87 through the 1991-92 terms to determine if the Court has become signifi cantly more conservative and, if changes have occurred, to determine the reasons for these changes. Despite the efforts of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush to pack the Court with judicial conservatives, the Re hnquist Court during this period was more liberal in its voting behavior than the Burger Court was in its last decade. Membership change, changes in the voting behavior of continuing members of the Court, and issue change all appear to have influenced the collective voting of the Rehnquist Court, with the result that the Court has not been as conservative as liber als had feared and conservatives had anticipated.

The Power Behind the Constitution: The Supreme Court.

Abstract: The Power Behind the Constitution: The Supreme Court by Sallie Raye Trudden The framers of the Constitution designed a document to be the “Supreme Law of the Land” and within its pages a branch of government, a federal judiciary, never before envisioned. The Constitution, along with the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, set the framework for building the strongest branch of government, the Supreme Court. Historical events and court decisions with few exceptions strengthened the power of the judiciary contributing to its authority. The Supreme Court Justices, by interpreting the Constitution and judging the legality of laws instituted by both state and federal legislatures, solidified its superior position in the government hierarchy. An examination of documents, case decisions, and the results of these decisions for the nation add credence to the assertion that of the three branches of government the strongest and most powerful was and is the Supreme Court.

The supreme court and the protection of minority rights: An empirical examination of racial discrimination cases

Abstract: This inquiry provides a basic assessment of the impact of three potential determinants of racial discrimination cases in the U.S. Supreme Court since 1954. The research design provides two improved methods of explicating this issue. First, the model allows for a comparison of basic Hamiltonian institutionalism (i.e., the bulwark thesis), majoritarianism, and attitudinalism in a single test, as opposed to previous studies that tended to examine only two theoretical approaches at a time. Second, the majoritarian approach is given more careful consideration through the use of theoretical and empirical evidence, which allows the subtleties of public opinion in this area to be assessed. The findings show some support for the basic bulwark prediction over majoritarianismdecisions fail to reflect majority opinion trends. The bulwark thesis fails to receive full support, however, since the ideologies of the Justices also display a significant influence on outcomes. Introduction The assessment of the determinants of U.S. Supreme Court decisionmaking remains an intensely controversial aspect of judicial studies. Advocates of several broad approaches continue to debate which is the principal impetus of outcomes both in general and in specific legal fields.1 My inquiry offers one perspective to help untangle this controversy in the domain of racial discrimination cases in the post-Brown v. Board of Education (1954) period. Although the findings will not end the long-standing debate over what determines decisional outcomes, they do provide a clarified picture of the racial discrimination subfield and a suggestion for studying other specialized areas. My basic approach and specific research design are premised on the assertion that a clear understanding of decisionmaking is obscured by previous studies (both general and particularized) that tend to inflate the influence of majority preferences (thus discrediting institutionalism to an unwarranted extent) and also fail to provide a full account by focusing only on two competing explanations at a time. The strategy for systematically interpreting outcomes in this area rests on two novel tactics. The first tactic is to expand consideration of the potential role played by majority opinion. (I furnish a complete description and justification of this approach later.) This tactic offers an improved test of the majoritarian thesis. The second approach of this inquiry allows for the explication of three potential determinants of decisionsthe rules and structure of the institution itself, majority public preference, and the ideological predilections of the Justices. It thus provides a core comparison of these broad categories rather bluntly defined, as opposed to an exhaustive assessment of all potentially meaningful determinants. Since such a basic measure of outcomes in this field has yet to be undertaken, however, this is a necessary first step. The results of this investigation of constitutional challenges to racial discrimination suggest that even though the Supreme Court is insulated from majority preferences, its decisions are influenced by Justices' ideological leanings. More specifically, although white Americans (who in this area represent the majority, as opposed to the African American minority) are much more amenable to government action designed to end blatantly discriminatory laws and practices (de jure discrimination) than to the eradication of entrenched patterns of inequity (de facto discrimination), this distinction is not reflected in the decision record. Whether a case represents a challenge to de jure or de facto discrimination does not significantly influence its outcome. Furthermore, fluctuations in the general ideological temper of the nation also fail to affect rulings. However, although distancing itself from majority influences, the Court is not consistently protective of minority rights. The ideological composition of the Court displays a significant influence on verdicts; thus, when the Court is relatively more conservative, cases are less likely to be decided in the minority interest. …

The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda

Abstract: When the Supreme Court takes action, it establishes national policy within an issue area. A traditional, legal view holds that the decisions of the Court settle questions of law and thereby close the door on future litigation, reducing the need for future attention to that issue. Alternatively, an emerging interest group perspective suggests the Court, in deciding cases, provides signals that encourage additional attention to particular issues. I examine these competing perspectives of what happens in the federal courts after Supreme Court decisions. My results indicate that while Supreme Court decisions generally settle areas of law in terms of overall litigation rates, they also introduce new information that leads to increases in the attention of judges and interest groups to those particular issues.

Non-appearance before the International Court of Justice

Abstract: A striking feature of the proceedings in the majority of cases before the International Court of justice since 1971 has been the absence from the courtroom of the state against which the proceedings have been brought. The various recent cases in which the possibility of 'non-appearance' has been resorted to by respondent states have given rise to a number of delicate problems of procedural law: and the phenomenon itself has caused disquiet. In this book, the first general study of the question to appear for over twenty years, the phenomenon is studied in the light of the statute and of the fundamental concepts and principles of international judicial procedure. The author, as an official of the court for over fifteen years, is particularly well qualified to expound a question of procedural law which, although apparently small in compass, is far-reaching in its implications for the future of international judicial settlement.