Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

Replacing Notorious: Barret, Ginsburg, And Postfeminist Positioning, Calvin R. Coker

Faculty Scholarship

This essay offers a rhetorical reading of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings to make sense of how widespread outrage over replacing the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative idealogue was resolved through the invocation of postfeminist motherhood. I argue that GOP Senators and Barrett herself positioned her nomination as the achievement of feminist goals, justified through rhetorics of choice and the idealization of (white) motherhood. These strategies cement Barrett as the logical and defensible successor to both Ginsburg’s seat and her legacy of feminist work. I conclude with the implications of this circulation of postfeminist motherhood, with focus on …

Presuming Trustworthiness, Ronnell Anderson Jones, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

A half-century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court often praised speakers performing the press function. While the Justices acknowledged that press reports are sometimes inaccurate and that media motivations are at times less than public-serving, their laudatory statements nonetheless embraced a baseline presumption of the value and trustworthiness of press speech in general. Speech in the exercise of the press function, they told us, is vitally important to public discourse in a democracy and therefore worthy of protection even when it falls short of the ideal in a given instance. Those days are over. Our study of every reference to the …

Beyond Roe V. Wade Series Begins March 22, Mark D. Weinstein

News Releases

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a Mississippi ruling with extensive implications for abortion rights, Cedarville University seeks to add a biblical perspective to the mix.

Free To Hate: Hate Crimes' Intertwinement With The Evolution Of Free Speech In The United States, Lee F. Paulson

Honors Theses

In response to the growing tension between civil liberties and civil rights, this research investigates the relationship between the relative expansiveness of free speech and a the nationwide propensity for hate crimes. I argue that government’s legal limitations of speech influence the development of linguistic and hierarchical norms in a national culture. Given structural inequality’s association to violence and crimes of intimidation, I hypothesize that as the government expands the legal bounds of free speech, the national propensity for hate crimes decreases. Text analyses of 50 influential freedom of expression rulings in the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court from 1919-2019 …

Oral Argument In The Time Of Covid: The Chief Justice Plays Calvinball, Tonja Jacobi, Timothy R. Johnson, Eve M. Ringsmuth, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

In this Article, we empirically assess the Supreme Court’s experiment in hearing telephonic oral arguments. We compare the telephonic hearings to those heard in person by the current Court and examine whether the Justices followed norms of fairness and equality. We show that the telephonic forum changed the dynamics of oral argument in a way that gave the Chief Justice new power, and that Chief Justice Roberts, knowingly or unknowingly, used that new power to benefit his ideological allies. We also show that the Chief interrupted the female Justices disproportionately more than the male Justices and gave the male Justices …

The Road To The Supreme Court Started At Cedarville University, Mark D. Weinstein

News Releases

People travel to Washington, D.C. because of its historical value. Audrey Beck, will travel to the nation's capital in a few weeks to continue her career.

Judicial Conflicts And Voting Agreement: Evidence From Interruptions At Oral Argument, Tonja Jacobi, Kyle Rozema

Faculty Articles

This Article asks whether observable conflicts between Supreme Court justices—interruptions between the justices during oral arguments—can predict breakdowns in voting outcomes that occur months later. To answer this question, we built a unique dataset based on the transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments and justice votes in cases from 1960 to 2015. We find that on average a judicial pair is seven percent less likely to vote together in a case for each interruption that occurs between them in the oral argument for that case. While a conflict between the justices that leads to both interruptions and a breakdown in …

Hitting The "Bullseye" In Supreme Court Coverage: News Quality In The Court's 2014 Term, Michael A. Zilis, Justin Wedeking, Alexander Denison

Political Science Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Role And Rhetoric Of Interest Groups In Obergefell V. Hodges’ Amicus Briefs, Heidi Mills

Honors College

This thesis explores the expression of polarization surrounding the most recent same-sex marriage case in the Supreme Court, Obergefell v. Hodges. 28 amicus briefs, submitted from interested groups and concerned individuals in support of either the petitioners or the respondents, were analyzed for the major points of concurrence and disagreement between the two sides. The aim of the study was to come to a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which both sides express their arguments either for or against same-sex marriage. What the findings of the content analysis suggest is that interest groups on both side of the …

The United States Could Use A Therapist General, Barry Mauer

UCF Forum

Lately I have been imagining the creation of a new office in the executive branch: a Therapist General to advise the president and the nation about psychological problems affecting American citizens, groups and institutions. The person assuming this role could issue an annual report about the state of the nation’s mental health, investigate and report on the likely psychological costs and benefits of proposed laws, and issue recommendations for therapies to improve the nation’s psychological health.

Judicial Activism’S Effect On Judicial Elections, Nick Fernandes

Student Scholar Symposium Abstracts and Posters

High profile Supreme Court cases have become increasingly commonplace, particularly with the Citizens United court decision granting unprecedented rights to corporations. Many in the media have decried these as examples of increasing “judicial activism”. This trend has trickled down to the state supreme courts as justices have increasingly played a more active role in developing policy. Gay marriage has become legalized in numerous states due to this trend. While public sentiment is unlikely to affect the appointed Supreme Court, it could have a substantial impact on state judicial elections.

This paper will specifically be looking at judicial elections in Kentucky. …

The Dangers Of Press Clause Dicta, Ronnell Andersen Jones

Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court has engaged in an unusual pattern of excessive dicta in cases involving the press. Indeed, a close examination of such cases reveals that it is one of the most consistent, defining characteristics of the U.S. Supreme Court’s media law jurisprudence in the last half century. The Court’s opinions in cases involving the media, while almost uniformly reaching conclusions based on other grounds, regularly include language about the constitutional or democratic character, duty, value, or role of the press — language that could be, but ultimately is not, significant to the constitutional conclusion reached. Although scholars …

Open Secret: Why The Supreme Court Has Nothing To Fear From The Internet, Keith J. Bybee

Institute for the Study of the Judiciary, Politics, and the Media at Syracuse University

The United States Supreme Court has an uneasy relationship with openness: it complies with some calls for transparency, drags its feet in response to others, and sometimes simply refuses to go along. I argue that the Court’s position is understandable given that the internet age of fluid information and openness has often been heralded in terms that are antithetical to the Court’s operations. Even so, I also argue the Court actually has little to fear from greater transparency. The understanding of the Court with the greatest delegitimizing potential is the understanding that the justices render decisions on the basis of …

Justice Owen J. Roberts On 1937, Edward L. Carter, Edward E. Adams

Faculty Publications

The motivations for Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts’ so-called “switch in time that saved nine” in 1937 remain largely obscured. For much of the past 75 years, judges, lawyers and scholars have discussed—including recently in this journal—why Justice Roberts would vote to uphold minimum-wage legislation in March 1937 when he had voted to invalidate similar legislation in June 1936. Given that President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled his court-packing plan on February 5, 1937, externalists have ascribed political motivations to Roberts and the Court. Internalists, meanwhile, have pointed to legal reasons for the switch. However, with the exception of a …

Will The Real Elena Kagan Please Stand Up? Conflicting Public Images In The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Keith J. Bybee

Institute for the Study of the Judiciary, Politics, and the Media at Syracuse University

What images of judging did the Kagan confirmation process project?

My response to this question begins with a brief overview of existing public perceptions of the Supreme Court. I argue that a large portion of the public sees the justices as impartial arbiters who can be trusted to rule fairly. At the same time, a large portion of the public also sees the justices as political actors who are wrapped up in partisan disputes. Given these prevailing public views, we should expect the Kagan confirmation process to transmit contradictory images of judicial decisionmaking, with a portrait of judging as a …

“The Mormon Education Of A Gentile Justice: George Sutherland And Brigham Young Academy”, Edward L. Carter, James C. Phillips

Faculty Publications

Even within the eclectic group of men and women who have sat on the U.S. Supreme Court, Associate Justice George Sutherland (1922-38) was truly one of a kind: The only Justice ever to come from the state of Utah, he grew up as a non-Mormon in a cloistered 19th century Mormon society—and yet he rose to become one of the community’s most popular and even beloved political figures. As a lawyer, Sutherland defended Mormon men charged with “unlawful cohabitation” for polygamous lifestyles—and yet as a U.S. Senator he championed women’s rights, including suffrage. As one of the so-called “Four Horsemen …

Newspaper Vs. Non-Newspaper Litigants In The U.S. Supreme Court, 1964-2001, Edward L. Carter, James C. Phillips

Faculty Publications

Newspapers have been involved as litigants in some of the most significant First Amendment cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Particularly since the groundbreaking case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964, newspapers have played a prominent role in Supreme Court cases that have defined many important points of First Amendment doctrine and have tested the nation's commitment to freedom of expression. Newspapers have successfully challenged, among other regulations, strict liability for defamation, a mandatory right of reply for political candidates, prior restraint of publication and a courtroom closure order in a high-profile state murder trial. But …

“Arrogance Cloaked As Humility” And The Majoritarian First Amendment: The Free Speech Legacy Of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Edward L. Carter, Brad Clark

Faculty Publications

In his 19 years as Chief Justice of theUnited States, William H. Rehnquist voted in favor of the individual expression interest asserted in approximately one-fifth of the Speech Clause cases heard by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, he opposed protecting those constitutional interests in approximately two-thirds of the speech cases during that time. (His votes evidenced both speech-protective and non-protective elements just more than 10 percent of the time). This manuscript analyzes the Rehnquist jurisprudence in comparison with that of his two immediate predecessors as Chief, Warren Burger and Earl Warren. Rehnquist’s deference to government, reliance on history and formalist categorization …

Death Of Procedural Safeguards: Prior Restraint, Due Process And The Elusive First Amendment Value Of Content Neutrality, Edward L. Carter, Brad Clark

Faculty Publications

In recent years, federal courts eroded the procedural safeguards required for prior restraint licensing schemes established in Freedman v. Maryland. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that the dangers of prior restraint were accounted for by content neutrality. But a close examination of federal courts of appeals opinions since 2002 reveals that erosion of procedural safeguards may threaten speech interests. First, procedural safeguards have not been required, in some cases, even for content-based prior restraints. Second, courts of appeals have held that, in the context of content-neutral prior restraints, the First Amendment no longer requires a time limit …