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.

Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making

Abstract: Conventional wisdom in judicial politics is that oral arguments play little if any role in how the Supreme Court makes decisions. A primary reason for this view is that insufficient evidence exists to test this hypothesis. Thus, I ask, do Supreme Court justices use information from oral arguments that may help them make decisions as close as possible to their preferred goals? My answer is straightforward: An investigation of the oral arguments and the Court's majority opinions in a sample of cases from the Burger Court era shows that the Court gathers information during oral arguments and then uses this information when making substantive policy choices. This finding has clear implications for the way in which scholars view the Supreme Court's decision-making process, as it suggests that the accepted view of where oral arguments fit into this process is far from accurate.

Multiple Opinion Climates in Online Forums Role of Website Source Reference and Within-Forum Opinion Congruency

Abstract: Through the Spiral of Silence framework, this study examines the online opinion climate effect on individual willingness to post messages in forums, using a 2 × 2 experiment manipulating website source (mainstream news/ideologically homogeneous activist group) and opinion congruency (minority/majority opinion). Individuals’ willingness to post was affected only by their opinion congruency with those expressed in forums. Analysis revealed instances of individuals “speaking up” as compared to “speaking out.” Other deterrents to willingness to post were also uncovered.

How to Improve the Necessity Test of the European Court of Human Rights

Abstract: According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, interferences with rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights can only be accepted if there is a proportionate relationship between the interference and its legitimate objectives, that is, if they are “necessary in a democratic society.” The Court has given shape to this test by developing standards such as that of the existence of a “pressing social need” and of “relevant and sufficient” reasons. However, these standards appear to be rather vague, and the Court’s case law on the test of “necessity” lacks transparence. For that reason, this article proposes the introduction of the more classic three-part test of proportionality in the Court’s case law. The article focuses on the use the Court might make of two particular elements of this test, that is, the test of suitability and the least-restrictive-means test. If applied correctly, the systematic application of these tests can contribute to the clarity and persuasiveness of the Court’s reasoning.

The Claim of Issue Creation on the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract: W T Ze argue that a variant of the sua sponte doctrine, namely, the practice disfavoring the creation of issues not raised in the legal record, is a norm with substantial consequences for the U.S. Supreme Court. Without it, justices would act considerably more like legislators, who are free to engage in "issue creation, " and less like jurists, who must wait for issues to come to them. Yet, McGuire and Palmer claim that justices engage in issue creation in a "significant minority" of their cases. We dispute this finding because we think it is an artifact of the way McGuire and Palmer collected their data. Indeed, for virtually every case in which they found evidence of issue creation, we show that the issue was actually present in at least one of the litigants' briefs. This suggests that justices may be policy seekers, but they are not policy entrepreneurs; and that briefs filed by third parties (such as amici curiae) are generally not a source of important issues considered by the Court.