Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
How Outcome Voting Promotes Principled Issue Identification: A Reply To Professor John Rogers And Others, Maxwell L. Stearns
How Outcome Voting Promotes Principled Issue Identification: A Reply To Professor John Rogers And Others, Maxwell L. Stearns
Vanderbilt Law Review
In his provocative article, "Issue Voting" by Multimember Appellate Courts: A Response to Some Radical Proposals,' Professor John M. Rogers has provided a valuable opportunity for those of us interested in the structural aspects of appellate court decisionmaking--especially Supreme Court decisionmaking--to step back, to compare notes, and to evaluate an increasingly prominent proposal for institutional reform. More importantly, this Colloquium provides an opportunity to explore more deeply several anomalies associated with appellate court decisionmaking. At the outset, I should emphasize that while he devotes a considerable portion of his article to evaluating my scholarship on appellate court decisionmaking, as Professor …
Issues And Outcomes, Guidance, And Indeterminacy: A Reply To Professor John Rogers And Others, David G. Post, Steven C. Salop
Issues And Outcomes, Guidance, And Indeterminacy: A Reply To Professor John Rogers And Others, David G. Post, Steven C. Salop
Vanderbilt Law Review
There is now a small but growing literature on the proper voting procedure for multijudge panels. Professor John Rogers began the most recent round of thinking about these vexing issues, arguing that a judge on a multimember panel should never "vote against the result of his or her own reasoning by deferring to a majority on a sub-issue on which the judge differs." We responded, arguing in favor of just such action, which we labeled "issue voting." We criticized Professor Rogers's preferred mode of multimember court adjudication, which we labeled "outcome voting," on the grounds that it provided limited guidance …