Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
For The Right Reasons: The Rules Of The Game For Institutionalists, Rick Joslyn
For The Right Reasons: The Rules Of The Game For Institutionalists, Rick Joslyn
Connecticut Law Review
The United States judiciary demonstrates better than any other constitutional institution the inherent fragility of American democracy. There is a reasonable debate to be had over when and exactly how the Supreme Court squandered the precious legitimacy on which its very existence rests. Yet, today, observers must confront with renewed urgency the impact crater of discontent that has been driven into the institution. The Court has been weaponized, politicized, and villainized; it has been lionized for its institutional heft. But increasingly loud voices have called for foundational reforms. There is a scramble for solutions to check the Court’s newly-emboldened right-wing …
Unsettled Law: Social-Movement Conflict, Stare Decisis, And Roe V. Wade, Mary Ziegler
Unsettled Law: Social-Movement Conflict, Stare Decisis, And Roe V. Wade, Mary Ziegler
Connecticut Law Review
With President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nomination, the reexamination of Roe v. Wade has become a probability. An increasingly conservative Court will almost certainly not embrace the idea of abortion rights. Instead, the fate of abortion rights will likely turn on the meaning of stare decisis, a doctrine requiring the Court to pay some deference to its past decisions. Stare decisis has recently played a starring role in abortion jurisprudence. In his controlling concurrence in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, Chief Justice Roberts invoked stare decisis while gutting the substantive rule written into the precedent to which he …
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
Connecticut Law Review
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 …