Topic
Supreme court
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
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: The authors assess the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches on the geographic constituency involved in the case, and find that high levels of information about the decision increases support for the decision among those for whom the decision is relatively less salient.
Abstract: We argue that the standard methodology for assessing the impact of Supreme Court decisions on public opinion, which relies on national surveys to measure public attitudes before and after relevant Court decisions, fails, among other grounds, to account for the fact that the overwhelming majority of Court decisions speak to particular constituencies only. We assess the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches on the geographic constituencies involved in the case. We interviewed a random sample of residents in the town of Center Moriches and in the surrounding county of Suffolk, New York, before and after the decision. Consistent with the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), we find that high levels of information about the decision increases support for the Court's decision among those for whom the decision is relatively less salient.
109 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a multinomial logit model was used to test the impact of judicial politics by examining search and seizure cases decided by the US Supreme Court between 1962 and 1989, and they found that several aspects of the judicial process, particularly the Court's political composition, legal constraints, litigant resources, attorney experience, amicus support and presidential preferences, affect the direction of legal change.
Abstract: To what extent is legal change influenced by judicial politics? This question, as initially posed by legal realists, provided the stimulus for much of the early study of the judicial process Although judicial scholars have since explored the impact of judicial policy views, the litigation environment, and the political environment, no systematic analysis of the impact of these factors on legal change has been undertaken. I develop a measure of legal change and use it to test the impact of judicial politics by examining search and seizure cases decided by the Supreme Court between 1962 and 1989 Using a multinomial logit model, I find that several aspects of the judicial process, particularly the Court's political composition, legal constraints, litigant resources, attorney experience, amicus support, and presidential preferences, affect the direction of legal change.
108 citations
Book•
19 May 2010
TL;DR: The Living Constitution as discussed by the authors argues that originalism suffers from fatal flaws: the impossibility of truly divining original intent, the difficulty of adapting eighteenth-century understandings to the modern world, and the pointlessness of chaining ourselves to decisions made centuries ago.
Abstract: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that the theory of an evolving, "living" Constitution effectively "rendered the Constitution useless." He wanted a "dead Constitution," he joked, arguing it must be interpreted as the framers originally understood it. In The Living Constitution, leading constitutional scholar David Strauss forcefully argues against the claims of Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and other "originalists," explaining in clear, jargon-free English how the Constitution can sensibly evolve, without falling into the anything-goes flexibility caricatured by opponents. The living Constitution is not an out-of-touch liberal theory, Strauss further shows, but a mainstream tradition of American jurisprudence-a common-law approach to the Constitution, rooted in the written document but also based on precedent. Each generation has contributed precedents that guide and confine judicial rulings, yet allow us to meet the demands of today, not force us to follow the commands of the long-dead Founders. Strauss explores how judicial decisions adapted the Constitution's text (and contradicted original intent) to produce some of our most profound accomplishments: the end of racial segregation, the expansion of women's rights, and the freedom of speech. By contrast, originalism suffers from fatal flaws: the impossibility of truly divining original intent, the difficulty of adapting eighteenth-century understandings to the modern world, and the pointlessness of chaining ourselves to decisions made centuries ago. David Strauss is one of our leading authorities on Constitutional law-one with practical knowledge as well, having served as Assistant Solicitor General of the United States and argued eighteen cases before the United States Supreme Court. Now he offers a profound new understanding of how the Constitution can remain vital to life in the twenty-first century.
108 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the impact of the 1989 Webster abortion decision and Texas v. Johnson, the flag-burning edict released immediately prior to the decision, was investigated using three Harris polls, one conducted just before the two decisions and two conducted soon after.
Abstract: In this article, we revisit the question of whether, and in what manner, attitudes regarding specific Supreme Court decisions influence subsequent levels of confidence in the Court itself. Analysis centers on the impact of the 1989 Webster abortion decision and Texas v. Johnson, the flag-burning edict released immediately prior to Webster. Using data from three Harris polls, one conducted just before the two decisions, and two conducted soon after, we design a quasi-experimental test in which data are ana lyzed using ordered logistic regression. Results demonstrate that agree ment with the rulings did affect perceptions of the Court, and that the pattern of effects is indicative of a negativity bias; that is, disagreement with one or both decisions substantially reduced confidence in the Court, but agreement with both edicts brought only a marginal gain in confi dence. Results also reveal that these effects did not decay in strength from the time of the first postdecision poll (conducted immediately after...
108 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1993
TL;DR: Newell as discussed by the authors explores the ways government regulatory policy and the law have affected Indian participation in the Pacific Coast fisheries and concludes that the governments of Canada and BC have historically regarded the aboriginal fishery narrowly and unjustly as a privilege, not a right, and have in fact moved against any changes which might put Indians into competition with non-Indians.
Abstract: Fishing rights are one of the major areas of dispute for aboriginals in Canada today. Dianne Newell explores this controversial issue and looks at the ways government regulatory policy and the law have affected Indian participation in the Pacific Coast fisheries.For centuries, the economies of Pacific Coast Indians were based on their fisheries. Marine resources, mainly salmon, were used for barter, trade, ceremony, and personal consumption. This pattern persisted after the arrival of European and Asian immigrants, even during the first phases of the non-Indian commercial fishing industry when Indian families were depended upon for their labour and expertise. But as the industrial fishery grew, changes in labour supply, markets, and technology rendered Pacific Coast Indians less central to the enterprise and the aboriginal fishery became legally defined as food fishing. By the late 1960s, rigid new licence limitation policies were introduced and regulations transformed the processing sector. The result was reduced participation for fishermen and shoreworkers and the opportunities for Indian men and women declined dramatically. Government programs to increase or even stabilize Indian participation ultimately failed. Newell concludes that the governments of Canada and BC have historically regarded the aboriginal fishery narrowly and unjustly as a privilege, not a right, and have in fact moved against any changes which might put Indians into competition with non-Indians. Recently, BC Indians won a Supreme Court victory in Sparrow (1990) that will make it easier to change federal fisheries policies but aboriginal fishing rights remain before the courts and under federal government investigation.Awarded the Canadian Historical Association's British Columbia and Yukon Certificate of Merit Award for 'Professor Newell's courageous critique of a history of mismanagement and misunderstanding in one of the region's key sectors should provide pause for thought to anyone with an interest in the workings of the modern state.'
108 citations