Showing papers on "Plurality opinion published in 1993"

The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited

Abstract: This book, authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants: the legal and rational choice. Using the US Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions. The book will be the definitive presentation of the attitudinal model as well as an authoritative critique of the legal and rational choice models. The book thoroughly reflects research done since the 1993 publication of its predecessor, as well as decisions and developments in the Supreme Court, including the momentous decision of Bush v. Gore.

The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model

Abstract: Preface 1. Introduction: Supreme Court policy making 2. Models of decision making 3. A political history of the Supreme Court 4. Staffing the Court 5. Getting into court 6. The decision on the merits process 7. Opinion assignment and opinion coalitions 8. The Supreme Court and constitutional democracy 9. The impact of judicial decisions 10. Conclusion Appendix Index.

Socioscientific evidence and supreme court numerology: When justices attempt social science

Abstract: In Stanford v. Kentucky, in which two juveniles sentenced to death raised an Eighth Amendment challenge, Justice Scalia's plurality opinion set the ground rules for deciding juvenile death penalty cases. He ruled "socioscientific" evidence and philosopher-king decisions out of bounds. Scalia argued that the Court must do its own social science analysis of the objective indicia to gauge whether community sentiment finds such a punishment cruel and unusual. In determining whether a "national consensus" exists, Justice Scalia transformed the empirical question into an impossible question, requiring that a categorical aversion must be shown. Petitioners lost, but so too did social science jurisprudence, as "statistical magic" and "numerology" reigned supreme. Language: en

Cigarette Warnings: The Perils of the Cipollone Decision

Abstract: In Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc., a splintered Court concluded that cigarette smokers who are injured through their consumption of tobacco may bring some state law tort claims against the manufacturers of the cigarettes. Other claims, however, are preempted by federal legislation requiring cigarette packages and advertising to bear warning labels, the specific wording of which is dictated by statute. After a detailed examination of the economics of hazard warning systems, Professor Viscusi argues that the most important economic issues in the Cipollone case were correctly resolved in Justice Stevens' plurality opinion, which contained little overt economic reasoning. The other two opinions in the case, which contained more economic analysis than the Stevens opinion, reached conclusions that were economically less sound with respect to the most important warnings issues. Professor Viscusi concludes that the result in Cipollone is largely good news for consumers, and that it should serve as a warning agai...