About: Supreme court is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 41858 publications have been published within this topic receiving 306787 citations. The topic is also known as: court of last resort & highest court of appeal.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show that the United States Supreme Court is mistaken in its implied assumption respecting the influence of integration upon competition and that vertical integration may not, as such, serve to reduce competition and may, if the economy is already ridden by deviations from competition, operate to intensify competition.
Abstract: RECENT decisions suggest that the United States Supreme Court is beginning to look upon integration as illegal per se, under the antitrust laws. It may be presumed, in so far as this inference is valid, that the Court believes that integration necessarily reduces competition "unreasonably."2 No sharp distinction is made by the Court between vertical and horizontal integration. It is the purpose of this note to show that the Court is mistaken in its implied assumption respecting the influence of integration upon competition. Horizontal integration may, and frequently does, make for higher prices and a less satisfactory allocation of resources than does pure or workable competition. Vertical integration, on the contrary, does not, as such, serve to reduce competition and may, if the economy is already ridden by deviations from competition, operate to intensify competition. My argument will be confined largely to this last proposition.
TL;DR: The president of Concern for Dying is one of four authors in this issue of the Hastings Center Report to write about Cruzan v. Harmon, and argues that the Missouri court failed to appreciate the "central and dual role" of privacy and consent in protecting self determination and in preventing the state from exercising too much authority over individuals.
Abstract: The Calculus of Consent Nancy Cruzan's personal tragedy threatens to become a national one. Embracing so many fundamental and symbolic aspects of life, the question of how she dies has understandably provoked profound and diverse responses. Various arguments have sought to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve either the right to life or the right to liberty, as if they were mutually exclusive and the only two interests at stake. Yet the rhetoric of rights has proven confusing, demonstrating only that "[l]ogic relentlessly and inappropriately pursued to its end can as readily lead to destructive results as can muddled emotions."  At issue in Cruzan is not a choice between life and liberty, but a way of life consistent with a belief in ordered liberty. Cruzan poses a basic political problem that should occasion honest introspection and a search for a solution that harmonizes conflicting concerns most consistently with the Constitution's vision of the proper relationship between individuals and the state, and of consent's role in maintaining accountability. Understanding and preserving that vision takes more than mere philological and rhetorical skill; it requires embracing an experientially shaped perspective such as guided the Constitution's framers. The Constitutional Vision Where logic alone fails us, experience must be our guide, for as Justice Holmes noted, "the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." Reconciling the values, explicit and implied, that the Constitution requires us to protect involves bringing the wisdom gained from experiences the framers never had, such as that derived from the history of modern medicine, to the vision represented by the Constitution. The Constitution rests on the belief that citizens should both exercise self-determination and be free from unwarranted government interference in their personal lives. Central to the framers' vision was their experience of living under a government that denied individual freedoms concerning religious practice, expression, and conscience, and permitted excessive accruals of power, which the framers viewed as a form of tyranny. However difficult it may be to respect freedom when its results seem obnoxious, the framers concluded that the hardships of permitting freedom are fewer and less dangerous than the hardships of denying it, and that the dispersion of power prevents the excesses of tyranny. The Constitution's basic sense is that life is better if the state does not dictate attitudes or actions and plays a minimal role in defining individual values.  Preserving Life This constitutional vision of balance exposes major difficulties in the Missouri Cruzan opinion. In asserting an unchecked state interest in preserving life, even in cases that do not violate any criminal prohibition against murder or suicide, the Missouri Supreme Court undertakes to obstruct an act the state could not prosecute. Because Nancy Cruzan "may" live for thirty years and is not imminently dying for as long as she is artificially fed, she is not terminally ill under Missouri's statute. The court concludes that its interest in preserving life outweighs any identifiable interest in permitting her to die. Indeed, Missouri's "unqualified" interest in preserving life precludes any interest in the quality of life. Moreover, the court announces that only "clear and convincing" evidence will satisfy the obligation to respect self-determination, and then discounts entirely evidence the trial court found credible. To protect the infirm and the disabled, the court rejects as unreliable substituted judgement or best interests standards for decisionmaking. The crucial question of precisely what evidence would be "clear and convincing" is left unanswered, but the language used by the court, the trends indicated by the O'Connor case in New York, and legislation enacted in furtherance of the so-called "right-to-life" agenda, suggests that such an evidentiary standard will prove chimerical. …
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: The Choices Justices make: A strategic account of the Supreme Court's decision-making process is presented in this paper, where the authors show that justices realize that their ability to achieve their policy and other goals depends on the preferences of other actors, the choices they expect others to make, and the institutional context in which they act.
Abstract: "The Choices Justices Make" is a groundbreaking work that offers a strategic account of Supreme Court decision making. Justices realize that their ability to achieve their policy and other goals depends on the preferences of other actors, the choices they expect others to make, and the institutional context in which they act. All these factors hold sway over justices as they make their decisions, from which cases to accept, to how to interact with their colleagues, and what policies to adopt in their opinions. "Choices" is a thought-provoking, yet nontechnical work that is an ideal supplement for judicial process and public law courses. In addition to offering a unique and sustained theoretical account, the authors tell a fascinating story of how the Court works. Data culled from the Court's public records and from the private papers of Justices Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, and Powell provide empirical evidence to support the central argument, while numerous examples from the justices' papers animate the work.
•26 Feb 1993
TL;DR: In this article, two leading scholars of the US Supreme Court and its policy making, systematically present and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making.
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.
01 Jan 1955
TL;DR: McFeely as mentioned in this paper presents a clear and illuminating analysis of the history of Jim Crow laws and American race relations, concluding that segregation in the South dated only to the 1880s.
Abstract: Strange Career offers a clear and illuminating analysis of the history of Jim Crow laws and American race relations. This book presented evidence that segregation in the South dated only to the 1880s. It's publication in 1955, a year after the Supreme Court ordered schools be desegregated, helped counter arguments that the ruling would destoy a centuries-old way of life. The commemorative edition includes a special afterword by William S. McFeely, former Woodward student and winner of both the 1982 Pulitzer Prize and 1992 Lincoln Prize. As William McFeely describes in the new afterword, 'the slim volume's social consequence far outstripped its importance to academia. The book became part of a revolution...The Civil Rights Movement had changed Woodward's South and his slim, quietly insistent book...had contributed to that change.'
Trending Questions (10)