Showing papers on "Supreme court published in 1990"

The Calculus of Consent

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." [1] 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. [2] 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. …

Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model

Abstract: We develop and test a neoinstitutional model of Senate roll call voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. The statistical model assumes that Senators examine the characteristics of nominees and use their roll call votes to establish an electorally attractive position on the nominees. The model is tested with probit estimates on the 2,054 confirmation votes from Earl Warren to Anthony Kennedy. The model performs remarkably well in predicting the individual votes of Senators to confirm or reject nominees. Senators routinely vote to confirm nominees who are perceived as well qualified and ideologically proximate to Senators' constituents. When nominees are less well qualified and are relatively distant, however, Senators' votes depend to a large degree on the political environment, especially the status of the president.

Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes

Abstract: On profound questions of birth, death, and human choice that are raised by abortion-where opposing sides see no common ground-how can the conflict be managed? The abortion debate in the United States today involves all Americans in complex questions of sex and power, historical change, politics, advances in medicine, and competing social values. In this best-selling book, an eminent constitutional authority shows how the nation has struggled with these questions and then sets forth new approaches that reflect both sides' passionately held convictions. The paperback edition includes discussion of the latest court decisions and excerpts from the major cases, including the Supreme Court's landmark June 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events.

Abstract: Previous research has demonstrated substantial effects of context on the numerical interpretation of verbal probability statements and has attributed these effects to the perceived base-rate probability of the predicted events. These context effects are shown to be attributable to the perceived severity of the predicted event as well as to the perceived base rate. Furthermore, there is evidence for strong context effects that are not explained by either of these 2 variables. The implications of these results for the use of verbal probability statements in the communication of probability information are discussed. Communication of uncertainties and probabilities occupies a central role in today's world. Despite their growing concern with risk communication, the lay public and many experts alike seem to prefer to communicate uncertainties with vague probability expressions rather than numerically when given a choice (Zimmer, 1983). In everyday conversation, we talk about an event having "a good chance" of happening. Physicians tell their patients that there is "some risk" of contracting a disease. A newspaper article describes the possible outcomes of a Supreme Court abortion decision as "unlikely" (reaffirmation of a previous decision), "possible" (overruling of the previous decision), and "most probable" (upholding the decision but whittling away some of its provision) ("The Battle,"

Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: Who Participates, When, and How Much?

Abstract: Our purpose is to describe and compare the variety and types of organizations that participate as amici curiae before the United States Supreme Court for decisions on petitions for writs of certiorari and jurisdictional statements as well as on decisions on the merits. We have classified all amici in cases from the 1982 Term of the Court according to their bases of membership--for example, citizen-based membership of advocacy groups, corporations, staff organizations such as public interest law firms, trade or professional associations, and so forth. Through this simple classificatory scheme, we seek answers to the fundamental questions of who participates as amicus curiae, when, and how much. Our findings reveal that the Supreme Court is remarkably accessible to a diverse array of organized interests at both stages of decision.

Perceived legitimacy of supreme court decisions: three functions of source credibility

Abstract: Public reaction to a Supreme Court decision hinges, in part, on the level of diffuse support enjoyed by the Court prior to announcement of the ruling. Previous investigators have exchanged adamant claims concerning the legitimacy-conferring ability of the Supreme Court, yet these studies have consistently ignored theoretical explanations of the psychological determinants of a receiver's response to an authoritative edict. Examined from the context of a cognitive view of persuasion, the credibility of the Supreme Court as a message source should not be expected to have a simple positive effect on opinion. Instead, unique effects may result from the interaction of source credibility and other components of the process of persuasion. This paper reports the results of a series of experiments that demonstrate that the credibility of the Supreme Court can serve three unique persuasive functions: Source credibility can cue a simple positive response, prompt increased cognitive effort, and serve as evidence in support of a persuasive claim.

Supreme Court Impact On Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals

Abstract: series of studies in the past two decades, usually referred to as "judicial impact" studies, have vitiated the traditional assumption that lower courts automatically adopt and diffuse the constitutional interpretations announced by the Supreme Court. In fact, several scholars have concluded that these judicial impact studies suggest that constitutional rules as announced by the Supreme Court, often have little influence on the behavior of judges and other officials in the legal system (Baum 1978: 208; Wasby 1973: 1086). But there is reason to doubt that the judicial impact literature presents an accurate appraisal of the overall significance of Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution for lower courts. Extant empirical research deals primarily with a highly biased sample of controversial civil liberties decisions, especially those of the Warren Court (Baum 1978). In effect, the studies to date may have been biased because they are limited to the small portion of the court's output for which the chances for significant impact were the smallest. Moreover, most research on judicial impact has examined the response of state courts because that is where scholars expected to find noncompliance. Much less attention has been given to the impact of the Supreme Court on the lower federal courts (Gruhl 1980: 504). This suggests that one should expect to find greater impact if federal court decisions, especially those dealing with economic issues or even less highly charged civil liberties decisions (e.g., libel cases) are examined. Baum (1978) also suggests that the impact of the Supreme Court should increase as the clarity of its opinions increase and should be greatest for courts which are most directly under the authority of the Supreme Court. Moreover, since reversal is a significant sanction for lower court judges, the probability of reversal may be expected to enhance impact. While all of Baum's observations on factors which are likely to affect impact appear plausible, none has received adequate empirical examination. Impact studies have also been handicapped by excessive attention to the relatively narrow and artificially dichotomous concept of compliance. Much of the literature on the impact of the Supreme Court on lower courts has dealt

Nancy Cruzan and the right to die.

Abstract: The national discussion concerning decision making for incompetent patients began with the 1976 case of Karen Ann Quinlan. Because she had been left in a persistent vegetative state after two periods of anoxia, her parents sought court authorization to remove her from a ventilator. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a landmark, unanimous decision, authorized the removal on the basis of Quinlan's constitutional right of privacy, which the court concluded would be lost unless her parents were given authority to exercise it on her behalf.1 In the 15 years since Quinlan, courts in almost 20 states have reviewed disputes . . .

The Impact of Party and Region On Voting Decisions in the United States Courts of Appeals, 1955-1986:

Abstract: nalysts of American political institutions have firmly established that party and region are important factors in voting behavior at both mass and elite levels of analysis. In this paper we examine the influence of party and region on the decisions of judges of the United States Courts of Appeals. Studies of voting patterns on the United States Supreme Court (Tate 1981), the federal district courts (Carp and Rowland 1983), and state appellate courts (see, for example, Ulmer 1962; Nagel 1961) have found both partisan and regional differences among judges. A number of studies of the United States Courts of Appeals have discovered significant differences in the voting patterns of Democratic and Republican judges on a wide spectrum of issues (Goldman 1966, 1975; Songer 1982; Gottschall 1983, 1986; Tomasi and Velona 1987). Such studies have found patterns that parallel the partisan differences in congressional voting: Democratic appellate judges are more likely than their Republican counterparts to support unions in labor management cases, defendants in criminal appeals, a liberal position in civil liberties cases, and the federal government in its attempts to regulate the economy. Carp and Rowland (1983) found modest regional differences between northern and southern judges on the federal district courts but they found no consistent differences between judges from the East and West. Both Democratic and Republican judges from the North were more liberal than their southern counterparts on criminal justice issues and on labor and economic management issues. The magnitude of regional differences increased substantially after 1968. For civil liberties issues, southern judges were slightly more liberal than northern judges from 1933 to 1968, but after 1968 northern judges in both parties became substantially more liberal than southern judges. More recently, Wenner and Dutter (1989) discovered significant differences for both the federal district and appeals courts among some of the circuits on environmental cases. However, the differences among circuits did not always follow regional lines consistently and they concluded that regional effects were more pronounced at the trial than at the appellate level.

The AIDS Litigation Project: A National Review of Court and Human Rights Commission Decisions, Part II: Discrimination

Abstract: EVERY major government,1,2medical,3,4public health,5and legal6,7organization to issue a report on the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic has condemned discrimination because it violates basic tenets of individual justice and is detrimental to the public health. Discrimination based on an infectious condition is just as inequitable as discrimination based on race, gender, or handicap. In each case, people are treated inequitably not because they lack inherent ability, but solely because of a status over which they have no control. Complex and often pernicious mythologies develop about the nature, cause, and transmission of disease. As the Supreme Court has recognized, "society's accumulated myths and fears about disability and disease are just as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual impairment. Few aspects of handicap give rise to the same level of public fear and misapprehension as contagiousness."8 Persons infected with HIV

In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU

Abstract: Throughout the 1988 Presidential campaign, George Bush drew cheers from supporters by attacking Michael Dukakis's membership in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization that he charged was out of the "mainstream" of American life. Indeed, throughout its history, the organization has championed some decidedly unpopular causes, including free speech rights for racist groups and due process for even the most vicious criminals. But as Samuel Walker argues in his provocative new book--the first comprehensive history of the ACLU--the organization has played a leading role in shaping principles of individual freedom that are now a cornerstone of American law and the way all of us conceive of personal liberty. It has been involved in most of the Supreme Court's landmark cases expanding individual rights, and today argues more cases before the Court than anyone but the federal government. In fact, as American Liberties makes clear, the organization has played a central role in creating that mythical American "mainstream" that its opponents so often invoke. In fascinating detail, Walker recounts the ACLU's stormy history since its founding in 1920 to fight for free speech. He explores its involvement in some of the most famous causes in American history, including the Scopes "Monkey Trial," the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the Cold War anti-Communist witch hunts, and the civil rights movement. And he examines its most famous personalities, such as its puritan and autocratic founder Roger Baldwin; Felix Frankfurter, a long-time member who later voted against many ACLU cases while a Supreme Court justice; and Morris Ernst, who won the landmark case involving James Joyce's Ulysses and led the ACLU to take up the cause of free expression for sexually-frank publications. Walker deals candidly with the ACLU's less praiseworthy episodes--such as the expulsion of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the Board during the ACLU's anti-Communist phase, and he dissects the organization's constant struggle within itself to define the proper scope of civil liberties, revealing facts that will surprise even members of the ACLU. As Walker's engrossing story demonstrates, the history of the ACLU embodies some of the most important changes in American society in the twentieth century. The principles for which the organization has fought--such as free speech, fair play, equality, and privacy--are now accepted and cherished by Americans from all walks of life.

The Poor in Court: The Legal Services Program and Supreme Court Decision Making

Abstract: Focusing on the Supreme Court as an integral part of the policy-making process, Susan Lawrence examines how a change in who has access to the Court, and the nature of the institutions that structure that access, has affected its agenda setting and doctrinal development. In her analysis of cases sponsored by the Legal Services Program (LSP) before the Supreme Court during the 1966 through 1974 terms, she explores the effect of this agency in creating a voice for the poor in the judicial policy-making process. The Court's response to cases presented by the LSP--as exemplified in its decisions to invalidate residency requirements for welfare recipients (Shapiro v. Thompson, 1969) but uphold maximum family grants (Dandridge v. Williams, 1970)--is described as emerging from a timely combination of new litigant claims, available legal bases, and judicial values and role conceptions, all of which were shaped by the political climate of the era. Lawrence convincingly argues that litigation before the Court is a powerful method of political participation for the disadvantaged. Originally published in 1990. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: the Effect of Presidential Appointments

Abstract: HE purpose of this study is to assess whether the Supreme Court has been responsive to one aspect of its political environment, the executive branch. The measure of responsiveness used is the support by the Court for the position taken by the solicitor general (SG) in amicus curiae briefs. The solicitor general is the representative of the national government in Court. As will be discussed below, his position generally cannot differ by much from that of the President. Thus, the degree of support by the Court for the solicitor general can be seen as a measure of political responsiveness to the executive branch.

An Institutional Analysis of Turnover in the Lower Federal Courts, 1900- 1987

Abstract: Retirement and resignation rates for lower federal court judges have been increasing steadily over the last two decades, yet there has been little systematic analysis either of the extent of, or reasons for this trend. Using multivariate time-series analysis, we investigate the turnover rates for lower federal court judges in the years 1900-1987, 1900-1953, and 1954-1987 by level of court and by political party. Drawing upon the literature on judicial and congressional retirements, we examine the impact of five variables on judicial leaving rates: presidential elections, salary increases, improved retirement benefits, caseload, and major Supreme Court decisions. We find that the caseload in each court, marked shifts in Supreme Court policies and especially presidential elections are consistently associated with judicial turnover in both lower federal courts for Democratic and Republican judges alike. Moreover, the electoral and major case effects continue to be statistically significant in the post-1953 e...

The Competence of Criminal Defendants with Mental Retardation to Participate in Their Own Defense

Abstract: seem both well-settled and well-suited to promote fairness in the criminal process. As the Supreme Court noted in 1975, "it has long been accepted that a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to trial."2 Whenever a defense attorney has a good faith doubt regarding the competence of his or her client, the attorney is obligated both to seek a clinical evaluation of the issue and to bring his or her doubts to judicial

The Discuss List: Agenda Building in the Supreme Court

Abstract: Each term 4,000 or more cases arrive at the doorstep of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court narrows the field of decision from all possible choices to a smaller set of the most plausible ones; in a typical term, the Conference places 20 to 30 percent (around 500) of the cases filed on its "discuss list," only 150 or so of which will be selected for plenary review. Here we investigate the composition, sources, and implications of the Court's disluss list. What criteria do the justices use in creating the list of cases for discussion in conference? Do these criteria differ from those ultimately applied in the decision to grant or deny a writ of certiorari? What, if any, implications does the operation of the disomss list hold for the composition of the agenda and the outcome of decisions on the merits in the Supreme Court? We test two chief sets of hypotheses: (1) the justices weigh the various formal and informal criteria differently across the two stages of agenda building, and (2) despite differences in weighting, the justices rely on briefs amirvs. curiae as well as ideological predispositions to help them both to identify logical candidates for discussion and to decide whether to grant certiorari. We explain the variation in the weighting of the criteria as being largely due to the cost and accuracy of information and the different risk of errors during the two phases of choice.

America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink

Abstract: It was a year packed with unsettling events. The Panic of 1857 closed every bank in New York City, ruined thousands of businesses, and caused widespread unemployment among industrial workers. The Mormons in Utah Territory threatened rebellion when federal troops approached with a non-Mormon governor to replace Brigham Young. The Supreme Court outraged northern Republicans and abolitionists with the Dred Scott decision ("a breathtaking example of judicial activism"). And when a pro-slavery minority in Kansas Territory tried to foist a pro-slavery constitution on a large anti-slavery majority, President Buchanan reneged on a crucial commitment and supported the minority, a disastrous miscalculation which ultimately split the Democratic party in two. In America in 1857, eminent American historian Kenneth Stampp offers a sweeping narrative of this eventful year, covering all the major crises while providing readers with a vivid portrait of America at mid-century. Stampp gives us a fascinating account of the attempt by William Walker and his band of filibusters to conquer Nicaragua and make it a slave state, of crime and corruption, and of street riots by urban gangs such as New York's Dead Rabbits and Bowery Boys and Baltimore's Plug Uglies and Blood Tubs. But the focus continually returns to Kansas. He examines the outrageous political frauds perpetrated by proslavery Kansans, Buchanan's calamitous response and Stephen Douglas's break with the President (a rare event in American politics, a major party leader repudiating the president he helped elect), and the whirl of congressional votes and dramatic debates that led to a settlement humiliating to Buchanan, and devastating to the Democrats. 1857 marked a turning point, at which sectional conflict spun out of control and the country moved rapidly toward the final violent resolution in the Civil War. Stampp's intensely focused look at this pivotal year illuminates the forces at work and the mood of the nation as it plummeted toward disaster.

Obscenity, Libertarian Values, and Decision Making in the Supreme Court

Abstract: The degree to which the Supreme Court has been willing to support the libertarian claims of obscenity litigation has varied substantially since the High Tribunal first addressed the issue. By the admission of the justices themselves, the law of obscenity has proven to be problematic, at best. In this analysis, a model is developed that accounts for the voting behavior of the justices in obscenity cases. The results suggest that the High Court is especially sensitive to the states' aim of eradicating obscene materials. Although the increased conservatism of the bench has made the justices less prone to vote against the government, there is evidence of support for the liberal position, particularly when the argument is made by some organized interest. The justices, although not necessarily protective of those against whom the government acts, recognize the need to balance the necessity of serving legitimate governmental interests against the potential threat to free expression.

Bioethicists' Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's Cruzan Decision

Abstract: On June 25, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the case of Nancy Cruzan, the first "right to die" case to come before it. The purpose of this statement is to clarify the meaning of that case in order to prevent misinterpretation that might lead to serious adverse consequences for hopelessly ill patients, their families, and health care professionals. First, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of competent patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Second, the Court did not treat the forgoing of artificial nutrition and hydration differently from the forgoing of other forms of medical treatment. . . .

Law, science, and humanity: The normative foundation of social science in law.

Abstract: Opposition by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychology-Law Society to the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court would have been justified on normative grounds by the inconsistency of Bork's views with the values underlying the social science in law (SSL) movement. SSL and the Chicago school of law and economics share realist beliefs about the social and political foundations of judicial behavior and the desirability of systematic empirical study as a means of facilitating the administration of justice, but the normative assumptions of the two schools of thought differ. Whereas the Chicago school, with which Bork is identified, reveres wealth maximization. SSL is intended to promote the values fundamental to the Constitution (e.g., respect for human dignity) and reverence for the law as an institution that reifies our sense of community.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.

Abstract: KIE: The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania continued an injunction precluding the enforcement of the Pennsylvania anti-abortion act while allowing the petitioner, in response to a Supreme Court remand, to present additional evidence concerning the "undue burden standard" established by the Supreme Court concerning abortion statutes. Originally, Planned Parenthood had challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's revised abortion statute. The Supreme Court remanded the case to permit the lower court to apply the Court's standard, i.e., that a state abortion statute will be found unconstitutional if it has "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial burden in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." The District Court held that it would open the record for additional evidence regarding the application of the undue burden standard. The court reasoned that, in spite of the absence of a direct order to reopen the record from the Supreme Court, it was within its discretion to make this decision.

Academic Freedom and the First Amendment in the Supreme Court of the United States: An Unhurried Historical Review

Abstract: This article seeks to trace the history of the AAUP's 1940 statement on academic freedom. Although the statement and the First Amendment have very different roots and practical applications, the two share a body of case law that often overlaps.

The 1988 Constitutional Crisis in Malaysia

Abstract: THE year 1988 witnessed some remarkable events in Malaysia. Not only was the ruling party held by a High Court judge to be an illegal society, but this event led indirectly to executive interference with the judiciary resulting in the removal of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, the country's most senior judge, and two other judges of the Supreme Court. Put shortly the problem is not an unfamiliar one in the Commonwealth countries of Asia and Africa. A judiciary in the process of flexing its muscles and exercising the independence vouchsafed to it by the constitution incurred the anger of an executive which took a very different view from the judiciary of the nature of the separation of powers under the constitution. The particular form this familiar story took is, however, of great interest because it brings together a number of extraordinary factors, political, legal and cultural, and reveals much about the difficulties which face judges in the rapidly industrialising countries of Asia.

Administrative Agencies and the Court: a Reexamination of the Impact of Agency Type On Decisional Outcomes

Abstract: is thoroughly documented in the literature. Over the past forty years there have been several studies that have demonstrated the high levels of success enjoyed by the agencies, with most of the literature reporting a success rate of about 70 percent for federal agencies (Pritchett 1948; Tanenhaus 1960; Canon and Giles 1972; Handberg 1979; Crowley 1987). Although federal agencies are successful as an aggregate group, researchers in the past have found that there is differentiation among the agencies in their rates of support by the Court. Some scholars have suggested that the different levels of support could be due to differences in the interests associated with the agencies (Handberg 1979; Crowley 1987). This has led to the creation of typologies that have usually been based on some variation of an economic/social dichotomy. It is argued that economic agencies seldom incite the ideological passions that are generally associated with social agencies (Ripley and Franklin 1984). The same ideological conflicts that we find in the legislatures could arise in the Court when it deals with cases involving social regulation (Crowley 1987). The impact of litigant characteristics on Supreme Court decisionmaking has been demonstrated for other types of parties such as black litigants (Ulmer and Thomson, 1981) and women (O'Connor and Epstein 1983). There is evidence that the type of party filing an amicus belief has a significant impact on the decision to grant plenary review (O'Connor and Epstein 1983; Caldeira and Wright 1988; Ulmer 1978). Moreover, Segal (1988) found that litigants supported by the solicitor general with amicus briefs are more likely to win than not. Similarly, there is a considerable amount of research indicating the effectiveness of the solicitor general as a direct party before the Court (Segal 1988; Segal and Reedy 1988; Ulmer and Willison 1985). It seems clear that the type of party involved in the case can have a significant impact on the Court's decisional outcomes.

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom : its evolution and consequences in American history

Abstract: Editors' preface The statute of Virginia for religious freedom 1. The Virginia statute two hundred years later Martin E. Marty 2. Colonial religion and liberty of conscience Edwin S. Gaustad 3. Religious Freedom and the desacralization of politics J. G. A. Pocock 4. The political theory of Thomas Jefferson Thomas E. Buckley, S. J. 5. James Madison, the statute for religious freedom, and the crisis of republican convictions Lance Banning 6. 'The rage of malice of the old serpent devil': the dissenters and the making and remaking of the Virginia statute for religious freedom Rhys Isaac 7. 'Quota of imps' John T. Noonan, Jr 8. Jeffersonian religious liberty and American pluralism Cushing Strout 9. Religion and civil virtue in America: Jefferson's statute reconsidered David Little 10. The priority of democracy to philosophy Richard Rorty 11. Madison's 'detached memoranda': then and now Leo Pfeffer 12. The Supreme Court and the serpentine wall A. E. Dick Howard Index.

The Law's Conscience: Equitable Constitutionalism in America

Abstract: The Law's Conscience is a history of equity in Anglo-American juris-prudence from the inception of the chancellor's court in medieval England to the recent civil rights and affirmative action decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Peter Hoffer argues that equity embodies a way of looking at law, including constitutions, based on ideas of mutual fairness, public trusteeship, and equal protection. His central theme is the tension between the ideal of equity and the actual availability of equitable remedies. Hoffer examines this tension in the trusteeship constitutionalism of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson; the incorporation of equity in the first American constitutions; the antebellum controversy over slavery; the fortunes of the Freedmen's Bureau after the Civil War; the emergence of the doctrine of "Balance of Equity" in twentieth-century public-interest law; and the desegregation and reverse discrimination cases of the past thirty-five years. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was the most important equity suit in American history, and Hoffer begins and ends his book with a new interpretation of its lessons.

A Nation Dedicated to Religious Liberty: The Constitutional Heritage of the Religion Clauses

Abstract: Foreword by Warren E Burger Acknowledgments Introduction Chapter One The Historical Roots of American Religious Liberty Chapter Two The Founders on Religious Liberty Chapter Three The Supreme Court and Religious Liberty Chapter Four The Animating Principles of the Religion Clauses Chapter Five Religious Liberty in Contemporary America Conclusion Appendices One Historical Documents on American Religious Liberty Two Early Declarations sand Constitutional Previsions on Religion Three Leading Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty Notes Bibliography Index