Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (6)
- Politics (2)
- Supreme Court Justices (2)
- 1965 Voting Rights Act (1)
- Administration of Justice (1)
-
- Anthony M. Kennedy (1)
- Boumediene v. Bush (553 U.S. 723 (2008)) (1)
- Brett Kavanaugh (1)
- Combatants (1)
- Democratic Party (1)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) (1)
- Elections (1)
- Executive Power (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Habeas Corpus (1)
- International Law (1)
- John G. Roberts Jr. (1)
- John Roberts (1)
- Judicial Activism (1)
- Judicial Candidates (1)
- Judicial Statistics (1)
- Military Commissions Act of 2006 (1)
- Naim v. Naim 350 U.S. 985 (1956) (1)
- Partisanship (1)
- Political Appointments (1)
- Presidential Elections (1)
- Public Opinion (1)
- Samuel A. Alito Jr. (1)
- Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) (1)
- Social Status (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Social and Behavioral Sciences
The Court Should Not Let Politically Divided Times Affects Its Choices And Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky
The Court Should Not Let Politically Divided Times Affects Its Choices And Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky
William & Mary Law Review
The Court should not let politically divided times affect its choices or decisions. Altering the Court’s role in politically divided times would require a definition of what qualifies as such an era and a theory of how to act in such times. Almost every era in American history could be deemed a politically divided time. Changing the Court’s role in politically divided times is inconsistent with its preeminent role: interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. This role does not change, and should not change, in politically charged moments. Indeed, history shows that the Court cannot know what is likely to lessen …
Section 2: Trump And The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 2: Trump And The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales
In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court Judges …
Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Popular Media
For the first time in a century, the Supreme Court is divided solely by political party.
Why The Supreme Court Cares About Elites, Not The American People, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Why The Supreme Court Cares About Elites, Not The American People, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
Supreme Court Justices care more about the views of academics, journalists, and other elites than they do about public opinion. This is true of nearly all Justices and is especially true of swing Justices, who often cast the critical votes in the Court’s most visible decisions. In this Article, we will explain why we think this is so and, in so doing, challenge both the dominant political science models of judicial behavior and the significant work of Barry Friedman, Jeffrey Rosen, and others who link Supreme Court decision making to public opinion.
Talk Loudly And Carry A Small Stick: The Supreme Court And Enemy Combatants, Neal Devins
Talk Loudly And Carry A Small Stick: The Supreme Court And Enemy Combatants, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Section 2: 2008 Election And The Supreme Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 2: 2008 Election And The Supreme Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
The Federalism-Rights Nexus: Explaining Why Senate Democrats Tolerate Rehnquist Court Decision Making But Not The Rehnquist Court, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Diminished Luster In Escambia County?, Neal Devins
Diminished Luster In Escambia County?, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act: Some Wrongs Still Not Righted, Neal Devins
The 1965 Voting Rights Act: Some Wrongs Still Not Righted, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Politics Of "Advice And Consent", William F. Swindler
The Politics Of "Advice And Consent", William F. Swindler
Popular Media
No abstract provided.