Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
From Judge To Justice: Social Background Theory And The Supreme Court, Tracey E. George
From Judge To Justice: Social Background Theory And The Supreme Court, Tracey E. George
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
The Roberts Court Justices already have revealed many differences from one another, but they also share a (possibly) significant commonality: Presidents promoted all of them to the U.S. Supreme Court from the U.S. Courts of Appeals. This means, of course, that they initially learned how to be judges while serving on a circuit court. How might the Justices' common route to the Court affect their actions on it? Social background theory hypothesizes that prior experience influences subsequent behavior such as voting, opinion writing, and coalition formation. This Article empirically analyzes promotion to the Supreme Court and examines the implications of …
"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie
"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
In this Essay--the first in a series of essays designed to reimagine the Supreme Court--we argue that Congress should authorize the Court to adopt, in whole or part, panel decision making... With respect to the prospect of different Court outcomes, we demonstrate empirically in this Essay that the vast majority of cases decided during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries--including "Grutter", "Roe", and "Bush v. Gore" --would have come out the same way if the Court had decided them in panels rather than as a full Court.
"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Chris Guthrie, Tracey E. George
"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Chris Guthrie, Tracey E. George
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
In this Essay--the first in a series of essays designed to reimagine the Supreme Court--we argue that Congress should authorize the Court to adopt, in whole or part, panel decision making... With respect to the prospect of different Court outcomes, we demonstrate empirically in this Essay that the vast majority of cases decided during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries--including "Grutter", "Roe", and "Bush v. Gore" --would have come out the same way if the Court had decided them in panels rather than as a full Court.