scispace - formally typeset
Topic

Roberts Court

About: Roberts Court is a(n) research topic. Over the lifetime, 397 publication(s) have been published within this topic receiving 1468 citation(s).


Papers
More filters
Book

[...]

01 Dec 2001
TL;DR: The author examines the appointment of Supreme Court Justices through the lens of criteria, evaluation, and judgements, as well as the process itself, which took place over a period of 40 years.
Abstract: Chapter 1 1. Introductory Reflections: Of Criteria, Evaluations, and Judgements Chapter 2 2. The Nixon Era: A Turbulent Case Study Chapter 3 3. How They Get There: Appointing Supreme Court Justices Chapter 4 4. Why They Get There: Qualifications and Rationalizations Chapter 5 5. The First Forty Years: From George Washington to John Quincy Adams, 1789-1829 Chapter 6 6. The Next Forty Years: From Andrew Jackson to Andrew Johnson, 1829-1869 Chapter 7 7. The Balance of the Nineteenth Century: From Ulysses S. Grant to William McKinley, 1869-1901 Chapter 8 8. Into the Twentieth Century: From Theodore Roosevelt to Herbert Hoover, 1901-1933 Chapter 9 9. The Court Alters Course: FDR and Truman, 1933-1953 Chapter 10 10. The Warren Court: From Ike to LBJ, 1953-1969 Chapter 11 11. The Burger Court: From Nixon to Reagan, 1969-1986 Chapter 12 12. The Rehnquist Court: Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, 1986-2005 Chapter 13 13. The Roberts Court: 2005- Chapter 14 14. Epilogue Chapter 15 Appendix A: Rating Supreme Court Justices Chapter 16 Appendix B: Rating Presidents Chapter 17 Appendix C: Statistical Data on Supreme Court Justices

73 citations

Posted Content

[...]

TL;DR: In this article, a stylized account of the Roberts Court's recent jurisprudence is presented as an instrument for sorting at the front end of litigation be-tween cases warranting either less or more judicial attention.
Abstract: Postconviction habeas comprises about seven percent of federal district courts’ dockets and between eight and twenty percent of Supreme Court certiorari work. Scholars of all stripes condemn habeas as an empty ‘charade’ lacking ‘coherent form.’ They urge as a result root-and-branch transformation. Contra that consensus, this Article first advances a descriptive hypothesis that the Roberts Court’s habeas jurisprudence is more internally coherent than generally believed — even if its internal logic has to date escaped substantial scholarly scrutiny. The Article develops a stylized account of the Roberts Court’s recent jurisprudence as an instrument for sorting at the front end of litigation be-tween cases warranting either less or more judicial attention. This account suggests that the Roberts Court titrates judicial attention by streaming cases into one of two channels via a diverse set of procedural and substantive mechanisms. In Track One, petitioners obtain scanty review and almost never prevail. In Track Two, by contrast, petitions receive more serious consideration and have a more substantial (if hardly certain) chance of success. This stylized account of the case law enables more focused investigation of the values that the Roberts Court pursues through its current articulation of habeas doctrine — and this is the Article’s second task. Drawing on both doctrinal analysis and law-and-economics models of litigation, the Article explores several possible justifications for the Court’s observed bifurcated approach. Rejecting explanations based on state-centered federalism values, sorting, and sentinel effects, the Article suggests that some conception of fault best fits the role of a central organizing principle. This aligns habeas with constitutional tort law, suggesting a previously unexamined degree of interdoctrinal coherence in the Roberts Court’s attitude to discrete constitutional remedies. While the central aim of this Article is positive and descriptive in character, it concludes by examining some normative entailments of habeas’s persistence in a bifurcated state. Specifically, I suggest that a better understanding of the Court’s fault-based logic casts skeptical light on existing reform proposals, and is at least consistent with the possibility that habeas could still serve as a tool in some larger projects of criminal justice reform.

44 citations

Journal Article

[...]

TL;DR: In this paper, a stylized account of the Roberts Court's recent jurisprudence is presented as an instrument for sorting at the front end of litigation be-tween cases warranting either less or more judicial attention.
Abstract: Postconviction habeas comprises about seven percent of federal district courts’ dockets and between eight and twenty percent of Supreme Court certiorari work. Scholars of all stripes condemn habeas as an empty ‘charade’ lacking ‘coherent form.’ They urge as a result root-and-branch transformation. Contra that consensus, this Article first advances a descriptive hypothesis that the Roberts Court’s habeas jurisprudence is more internally coherent than generally believed — even if its internal logic has to date escaped substantial scholarly scrutiny. The Article develops a stylized account of the Roberts Court’s recent jurisprudence as an instrument for sorting at the front end of litigation be-tween cases warranting either less or more judicial attention. This account suggests that the Roberts Court titrates judicial attention by streaming cases into one of two channels via a diverse set of procedural and substantive mechanisms. In Track One, petitioners obtain scanty review and almost never prevail. In Track Two, by contrast, petitions receive more serious consideration and have a more substantial (if hardly certain) chance of success. This stylized account of the case law enables more focused investigation of the values that the Roberts Court pursues through its current articulation of habeas doctrine — and this is the Article’s second task. Drawing on both doctrinal analysis and law-and-economics models of litigation, the Article explores several possible justifications for the Court’s observed bifurcated approach. Rejecting explanations based on state-centered federalism values, sorting, and sentinel effects, the Article suggests that some conception of fault best fits the role of a central organizing principle. This aligns habeas with constitutional tort law, suggesting a previously unexamined degree of interdoctrinal coherence in the Roberts Court’s attitude to discrete constitutional remedies. While the central aim of this Article is positive and descriptive in character, it concludes by examining some normative entailments of habeas’s persistence in a bifurcated state. Specifically, I suggest that a better understanding of the Court’s fault-based logic casts skeptical light on existing reform proposals, and is at least consistent with the possibility that habeas could still serve as a tool in some larger projects of criminal justice reform.

36 citations

Posted Content

[...]

TL;DR: The first empirical study of Supreme Court opinions that invoke the word "dignity" was conducted by as mentioned in this paper. But despite its popularity, dignity is a concept in disarray and its meanings and functions are commonly presupposed, but rarely articulated.
Abstract: Few words play a more central role in modern constitutional law without appearing in the Constitution than dignity. The term appears in nearly one thousand Supreme Court opinions, but despite its popularity, dignity is a concept in disarray. Its meanings and functions are commonly presupposed, but rarely articulated. The result is a cacophony of uses so confusing that some critics argue the word ought to be abandoned altogether. This Article fills a void in the literature by offering the first empirical study of Supreme Court opinions that invoke dignity, and then proposing a typology of dignity based on a Wittgensteinian analysis of those opinions. The dataset reveals three important findings. First, the Court’s reliance on dignity is increasing, and the Roberts Court is accelerating that trend. Second, in contrast to its past use, the more conservative Justices on the Court are now as likely to invoke dignity as their more liberal counterparts. Finally, the dataset demonstrates that dignity is not one concept, as other scholars have theorized, but rather that dignity admits of five related conceptions. The typology refers to these conceptions of dignity as: institutional status as dignity, liberty as dignity, equality as dignity, personal integrity as dignity, and collective virtue as dignity. This Article traces each type of dignity to its epistemic origins and describes the substantive dignitary interests each protects. Importantly, the typology offers more than a clarification of the conceptual chaos surrounding dignity. It provides tools to track the Court’s use of different types of dignity over time. This permits us to detect doctrinally transformative moments, in such areas as state sovereign immunity and abortion jurisprudence, which arise from shifting conceptions of dignity.

35 citations

Posted Content

[...]

TL;DR: For instance, this paper found that women being interrupted at disproportionate rates by their male colleagues, as well as by male advocates, and that the increase in interruptions over time is not a product of Justice Scalia's particularly disruptive style, as some have theorized, nor of the political polarization in the country generally arising from the 1994 Republican Revolution.
Abstract: Oral arguments at the Supreme Court are important — they affect case outcomes and constitute the only opportunity for outsiders to directly witness the behavior of the justices of the highest court. This Article studies how the justices compete to have influence at oral argument, by examining the extent to which the Justices interrupt each other; it also scrutinizes how advocates interrupt the Justices, contrary to the rules of the Court. We find that judicial interactions at oral argument are highly gendered, with women being interrupted at disproportionate rates by their male colleagues, as well as by male advocates. Oral argument interruptions are also highly ideological, not only because ideological foes interrupt each other far more than ideological allies do, but we show that conservatives interrupt liberals more frequently than vice versa. Seniority also has some influence on oral arguments, but primarily through the female justices learning over time how to behave more like male justices, avoiding traditionally female linguistic framing in order to reduce the extent to which they are dominated by the men. We use two separate databases to examine how robust these findings are: a publicly available database of Roberts Court oral arguments, and another that we created, providing in-depth analysis of the 1990, 2002, and 2015 Terms. This latter data allows us to see whether the same patterns held when there were one, two, and three female justices on the Court, respectively. These two sets of analyses allow us to show that the effects of gender, ideology, and seniority on interruptions have occurred fairly consistently over time. It also reveals that the increase in interruptions over time is not a product of Justice Scalia’s particularly disruptive style, as some have theorized, nor of the political polarization in the country generally arising from the 1994 Republican Revolution. We also find some evidence that judicial divisions based on legal methodology, as well as ideology, lead to greater interruptions.

30 citations

Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Constitutional law
11.5K papers, 86.3K citations
85% related
Supreme court
41.8K papers, 306.7K citations
82% related
Common law
30.1K papers, 280.7K citations
77% related
Federalism
10.8K papers, 159.8K citations
75% related
Statute
19K papers, 146.6K citations
75% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
20212
20209
20196
201812
201721
201627