Topic
Plurality opinion
About: Plurality opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 163 publications have been published within this topic receiving 5206 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined shifts in pre-and post-decision public opinions polls and found that the average pre-to-postdecision poll shift is virtually zero.
Abstract: Evidence for the Supreme Court's legitimacy-conferring role is measured by examining shifts in pre- and postdecision public opinions polls. A study of 18 poll shifts since the 1930s indicates that the average pre- to postdecision poll shift is virtually zero. Under limited circumstances, however, larger poll shifts toward the Court's position do occur, especially when the Court makes liberal, activist decisions and when a time-lag variable is allowed for.
40 citations
TL;DR: The effect of the opinion of the group upon individual opinion is almost three times as great as chance individual effect as discussed by the authors, which is the same as the effect of group opinion on individual opinion.
Abstract: The effect of the opinion of the group upon individual opinion is almost three times as great as chance individual effect. The opinion of the group inhibits disagreeing individual opinion by almost one-half. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)
38 citations
TL;DR: The authors examined the treatment of Supreme Court cases from the 1976-1986 terms by the Circuit Courts of Appeals from 1976 to 1986, and found that lower court judges follow Supreme Court plurality opinions.
Abstract: To what extent do lower court judges follow Supreme Court plurality opinions? By examining treatments of Supreme Court cases from the 1976-1986 terms by the Circuit Courts of Appeals from 1976 to 2...
36 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the voting of United States Courts of Appeals judges in tort diversity cases and found that despite these benefits, the votes of the appeals court judges appear to be highly constrained by law and precedent.
Abstract: Some political scientists maintain that Supreme Court justices are more likely than other appellate court judges to vote their ideological preferences. It is argued that Supreme Court justices may vote their preferences without constraint from precedent because of a lack of electoral or political accountability, absence of ambition for higher office, and status as a member of a court of last resort that controls its own docket. While this expla nation of attitudinal voting is widely accepted, it has never been tested. As a first test of the asserted institutional foundations of attitudinal voting, the voting of United States Courts of Appeals judges in tort diversity cases is examined. In such cases, appeals court judges benefit from all of the institutional features thought to advance attitudinal voting, except complete docket control. Despite these benefits, the votes of the appeals court judges appear to be highly constrained by law and precedent.
32 citations
TL;DR: This paper examined the members of the Rehnquist Court (1986-94 terms) with prior appellate court experience to discern any correlation with their Supreme Court behavior in terms of nonconsensual opinion writing and voting, finding that they become less consensual as justices than they were as judges in the lower court.
Abstract: I n this first systematic and extensive application of cross-judicial methodology, we examine the members of the Rehnquist Court (1986-94 terms) with prior appellate court experience to discern any correlation with their Supreme Court behavior in terms of nonconsensual opinion writing and voting. We find that they become less consensual as justices than they were as judges in the lower court. Importantly, this finding holds after controlling for such institutional differences between the two court levels as size, ideology, case types, stare decisis, and norms. Consistent with the neoinstitutionalperspective, we surmise that this behavior change is due to the modem Supreme Court being unique, a court on which the members feel it is desirable, necessary, and possible to express policy disagreements with the majority via separate opinions and votes. W~~hen John Marshall was appointed chief justice
31 citations