Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Abstain from the fray (1)
- Appeals (1)
- Citation networks (1)
- Citron (1)
- Co-citation networks (1)
-
- Constitutional rights (1)
- Desegregation (1)
- Ex parte communications (1)
- FBI agents (1)
- Federal Judge (1)
- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Government lawyers (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Impartial (1)
- Judicial abilities (1)
- Judicial ideology (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Liberal judge (1)
- Long Shadow of United States v. Rosenberg: A Biographical Perspective on the Hon. Irving Robert Kaufman (1)
- Network analysis (1)
- Political connections (1)
- Presidential Medal of Freedom (1)
- Private practice (1)
- Public eye (1)
- Public service (1)
- Rights of the press (1)
- Rodger Citron (1)
- Second circuit (1)
- Sentencing hearings (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Judge Never Writes More Freely: A Separate-Opinions Citation-Network Approach To Assessing Judicial Ideology, Joseph S. Miller
A Judge Never Writes More Freely: A Separate-Opinions Citation-Network Approach To Assessing Judicial Ideology, Joseph S. Miller
Scholarly Works
What do judges really care about? Scholars have used various methods to identify a judge’s policy preferences. The standard method in political science, called the Martin-Quinn score, counts a judge’s votes for conservative or liberal outcomes. But judges don’t just vote, they give reasons in written opinions. Reason-giving is not only part of the tradition of common-law decision making but is also central to rule-of-law ideals, concerns that are not the focus most empirical methodologies. What’s more, the reasons a judge gives for reaching a conclusion provide powerful evidence for what the judge herself cares about. That is especially the …
The Long Shadow Of United States V. Rosenberg: A Biographical Perspective On The Hon. Irving Robert Kaufman, Rodger D. Citron
The Long Shadow Of United States V. Rosenberg: A Biographical Perspective On The Hon. Irving Robert Kaufman, Rodger D. Citron
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Judicial Consensus: Why The Supreme Court Should Decide Its Cases Unanimously, David Orentlicher
Judicial Consensus: Why The Supreme Court Should Decide Its Cases Unanimously, David Orentlicher
Scholarly Works
Like Congress and other deliberative bodies, the Supreme Court decides its cases by majority vote. If at least five of the nine Justices come to an agreement, their view prevails. But why is that the case? Majority voting for the Court is not spelled out in the Constitution, a federal statute, or Supreme Court rules.
Nor it is obvious that the Court should decide by a majority vote. When the public votes on a ballot measure, it typically makes sense to follow the majority. The general will of the electorate ought to govern. But judicial decisions are not supposed to …