Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Law

Should Justices Ever Switch Votes?: Miller V. Albright In Social Choice Perpsective, Maxwell L. Stearns Jan 1999

Should Justices Ever Switch Votes?: Miller V. Albright In Social Choice Perpsective, Maxwell L. Stearns

Faculty Scholarship

This article will consider the implications of a rare, but conceptually significant, phenomenon in Supreme Court decision making. The Supreme Court has occasionally issued opinions in which the justices’ own assessments of the relationships between and among identified dispositive issues, and the votes cast by the individual justices over those issues, demonstrate a logical voting path leading to the dissenting result. In an even rarer group of just three known cases, one or more justices has attempted to avoid the undesirable consequence of a Supreme Court ruling that is in a significant sense at odds with itself by conceding to …


Supreme Court Section 1983 Developments: October 1998 Term, Martin A. Schwartz Jan 1999

Supreme Court Section 1983 Developments: October 1998 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.


Smoking Status And Public Responses To Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence, W. Kip Viscusi, Wesley A. Magat, Joel Hubert Jan 1999

Smoking Status And Public Responses To Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence, W. Kip Viscusi, Wesley A. Magat, Joel Hubert

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Situations in which individuals receive information seldom involve scientific consensus over the level of the risk. When scientific experts disagree, people may process the information in an unpredictable manner. The original data presented here for environmental risk judgments indicate a tendency to place disproportionate weight on the high risk assessment, irrespective of its source, particularly when the experts disagree. Cigarette smokers differ in their risk information processing from nonsmokers in that they place less weight on the high risk judgment when there is a divergence in expert opinion. Consequently, they are more likely to simply average competing risk assessments.


Taking Decisions Seriously, Richard D. Friedman Jan 1999

Taking Decisions Seriously, Richard D. Friedman

Reviews

The New Deal era is one of the great turning points of American constitutional history. The receptivity of the Supreme Court to regulation by state and federal governments increased dra- matically during that period. The constitutionalism that prevailed before Charles Evans Hughes became Chief Justice in 1930 was similar in most respects to that of the beginning of the twen- tieth century. The constitutionalism that prevailed by the time Hughes’ successor Harlan Fiske Stone died in 1946 is far more related to that of the end of the century. How this transformation occurred is a crucial and enduring issue in …


Sincere And Strategic Voting Norms On Multimember Courts, Evan H. Caminker Jan 1999

Sincere And Strategic Voting Norms On Multimember Courts, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

In appellate adjudication, decisions are rendered by a multimember court as a collective entity, not by individual judges. Yet legal scholars have only just begun to explore the formal and informal processes by which individual votes are transformed into a collective judgment.' In particular, they have paid insufficient attention to the ways in which the vote of each individual judge is influenced by the views of her colleagues on a multimember court.


Sticks And Stones, Phoebe C. Ellsworth Jan 1999

Sticks And Stones, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Articles

I believe that research should be refuted by research. More and more of our scarce journal space is being taken up by attacks, rebuttals, and rebuttals to the rebuttals, often ending with a whimper of recognition that the adversaries were not so very far apart to begin with, and that the only way (if possible) to resolve the disagreement is through empirical research. Communication of scientific disagreement does not require a published article. Grant proposals and manuscripts submitted to refereed journals like this one are sent out to reviewers, who provide written evaluations that are communicated to the author. Papers …