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.

Membership Change and Collective Voting Change in the United States Supreme Court

Abstract: Scholars and other observers of the Supreme Court generally perceive that change in the Court's membership is the primary source of change in its policies and decisional patterns. This article is an effort to test that perception by examining the sources of collective voting change in civil liberties decisions during the 1946-1985 terms of the Court. Focusing on periods of significant change in collective voting behavior during this era, the analysis shows that membership change was the primary source of voting change overall but that change in the voting behavior of continuing members played a major role in producing collective voting change during some periods.

Marshalling the Court: Bargaining and Accommodation on the United States Supreme Court

Abstract: Theory: Supreme Court opinion authors make strategic calculations about the need to craft opinions that are acceptable to their colleagues on the bench. Hypotheses: The willingness of justices to accommodate their colleagues depends upon the size and ideological makeup of the majority conference coalition and the number of suggestions and threats issued by their colleagues. These strategic considerations are important even after controlling for a series of nonstrategic factors, such as case complexity. Method: To examine the extent of accommodation in Supreme Court cases, we examine the number of draft opinions circulated by the majority opinion author. We use a Generalized Event Count model to determine whether strategic or nonstrategic efforts influence the amount of accommodation that occurs. Results: We show that accommodation is influenced strongly by strategic concerns-including the size of the majority conference coalition, the ideological distance of the author from the majority coalition, the ideological heterogeneity of the conference majority coalition, and the positions taken by majority coalition members and by nonstrategic factors, including the author's workload and the complexity of a case.

Gut Reactions Moral Conviction, Religiosity, and Trust in Authority

Abstract: Theory and research point to different ways moral conviction and religiosity connect to trust in political authorities to decide controversial issues of the day. Specifically, we predicted that stronger moral convictions would be associated with greater distrust in authorities such as the U.S. Supreme Court making the "right" decisions regarding controversial issues. Conversely, we predicted that stronger religiosity would be associated with greater trust in authorities. We tested these hypotheses using a survey of a nationally representative sample of Americans (N = 727) that assessed the degree to which people trusted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the legal status of physician-assisted suicide. Results indicated that greater religiosity was associated with greater trust in the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue, and that stronger moral convictions about physician-assisted suicide were associated with greater distrust in the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue. Also, the processes underlying religious trust and distrust based on moral convictions were more quick and visceral than slow and carefully considered.

Designing Tests of the Supreme Court and the Separation of Powers

Abstract: While rational choice models of Supreme Court decisionmaking have enhanced our appreciation for the separation of powers built into the Madisonian Constitutional design, convincing empirical suppor...

Continuity and Change on the United States Courts of Appeals

Abstract: While many fine works of scholarship examine the role of the Supreme Court in American politics, there has been a dearth of scholarly books that focus on the Courts of Appeals. "Continuity and Change on the United States Courts of Appeals "is unique both in its focus on this level of the judiciary and its approach that examines major trends over the twentieth century. Since the Supreme Court has the discretion to refuse to hear almost all cases appealed to it, the Courts of Appeals are usually the final option for litigants in the federal system. Unless overturned by the Supreme Court or, in cases decided on the basis of statute, by Congressional action, the rulings can have a significant impact on government policy.The authors present the first comprehensive examination of the shifting role of the Courts of Appeals, investigating changes over time and presenting the first systematic analyses of those changes. Their work is the first book to utilize the database of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, analyzing over 15,000 cases to examine trends between 1925 and 1988. The book answers questions such as who are the judges? What are their decisional tendencies? What has been the role of region and partisan politics? Who are the litigants? And who has won and who has lost throughout the twentieth century? It is the only current, up-to-date book on the Courts of Appeals and an essential read for all scholars and students interested in American politics and judicial behavior.Donald R. Songer is Professor of Political Science, University of South Carolina. Reginald S. Sheehan is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Program for Law and Juridical Politics, Michigan State University. Susan B. Haire is Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Georgia