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.

The judiciary as legislator? How the European Court of Justice shapes policy-making in the European Union

Abstract: The question of whether, and if so, how the European Court of Justice influences European integration has been a matter of long-standing academic dispute. Several more recent empirical studies have shown that the Court influences the integration path, but scholars have also documented that member states can successfully limit the practical relevance of activist Court decisions. Drawing on this literature, this paper argues that the Court eventually impacts integration in salient policy fields effectively when the legislator incorporates judicial considerations in the policy-making process. The theoretical section conceptualizes the leverage of the Court in the legislation process and the empirical section elucidates how the judiciary shaped legislation in the development of exchange students' social rights. Findings show that the Court can successfully promote distinct legislative outcomes.

Attribution of Conduct in Peace Operations: The ‘Ultimate Authority and Control’ Test

Abstract: The article addresses the issue of whether conduct in international peace operations is attrib- utable to the troop contributing states or to the United Nations, taking the European Court of Human Rights ' admissibility decision in the Behrami and Saramati cases as a point of ref- erence. The Court concluded that conduct by UNMIK and KFOR troops in Kosovo is attrib- utable to the United Nations. The article examines the content of the ' ultimate authority and control ' test that is applied by the Court, and argues that the Court should have taken a different approach. The Court's test is in the author's view diffi cult to reconcile with the International Law Commission's work on the responsibility of international organizations, with United Nations practice on responsibility for unlawful conduct in peace operations, and with the Court's own jurisprudence concerning attribution of conduct to the state. The author argues further that the Court's arguments are incomplete even if the Court's approach were to be considered correct. The article concludes by expressing concern that the Court's deci- sion, when seen in connection with previous case law, in practice renders the European Con- vention on Human Rights irrelevant in international peace operations.

"Public Opinion" at the End of the Old Regime

Abstract: To speak to us of the public spirit [I'esprit public] is to persist in giving a common name to the most heterogeneous opinions. Those who construct it out of the thought of their own coterie pretend to be unaware that they are surrounded by other coteries that feed on quite different illusions and that [even] within the same circle, people change system, party, and principles every month, every decade, and often overnight. The dictionary of the Revolution already contains some words that have become obsolete.

Invoking Public Opinion: Policy Elites and Social Security

Abstract: Do policy elites invoke public opinion? When they do, are their claims based on evidence from public opinion surveys? To learn about the claims that policy elites make, we examined statements the president and members of Congress, experts, and interest group leaders in congressional hearings made about Social Security. To learn about opinion data on Social Security, we conducted a Lexis-Nexis search of the archives of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Our analyses show that policy elites discussing Social Security did invoke public opinion. Contrary to our expectations, however, few of the elite invocations of public opinion cited specific surveys or concrete facts about the distribution of opinion. Although claims directly contradicting survey evidence were relatively rare, only with the rather few specific claims by congressional elites did we find much clear-cut support in the available polling data. Relatively seldom could we find clear-cut support for the elites' general claims. Moreover, some of the most frequent claims about public opinion-including the UFO story and alleged public support for privatization-could have been contested but seldom were. The highly visible and well-polled case of Social Security suggests that specific, data-based elite invocations of public opinion may be even less common on other, lower-visibility and less-polled issues. It also suggests that survey research professionals might do well to intensify their scrutiny of public discourse about public opinion and to increase their efforts to bring scientific expertise to bear upon such discourse.

Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of Supreme Court Opinions

Abstract: Legal clarity is important to understand and measure because of its connection to the rule of law. We provide the first systematic examination of the clarity of Supreme Court opinions and discover five important results. First, certain justices systematically craft clearer opinions than others. Justices Scalia and Breyer write the clearest opinions while Justice Ginsburg consistently writes the most complex opinions. Second, ideology does not predict clarity. Third, all justices write clearer dissents than majority opinions, while minimum winning coalitions produce the clearest majority opinions. Fourth, justices across the board write clearer opinions in criminal procedure cases than in any other issue area. Finally, opinions that formally alter Court precedent render less clear law, potentially leading to a cycle of legal ambiguity.