Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals and Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History

2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (04) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine L. Nemacheck
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Foundations ◽  
The U.S

U.S. Supreme Court Decision-Making and the Free Exercise Clause

1993 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Ignagni
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Free Exercise Clause ◽  
Attitudinal Model ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Free Exercise Of Religion ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Supreme Court, at various times, has changed the constitutional tests it claimed to use in order to settle free exercise of religion disputes. These changes in official doctrine and the manner in which many cases have been decided have left the Supreme Court open to much criticism from legal scholars. This study differs substantially from previous work in this area. It uses a fact-attitudinal model to analyze the cases from the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts. Its findings indicate that these decisions are, generally, explainable and predictable.

Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 853-865 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin T. McGuire ◽  
Barbara Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Agenda Building ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The U.S

In the process of agenda setting, the U.S. Supreme Court is limited to selecting from among only those cases brought before it. Despite this limitation, the justices possess considerable discretion and can reshape the issues in a case as a means of advancing their policy preferences. With data drawn from the Court's opinions, we find that, over the past twenty-five years, the justices have evinced a frequent willingness to expand the issues on their plenary docket and resolve questions not formally presented by the parties. We conclude that, notwithstanding informal norms that disapprove of this practice, issue fluidity is an important component in a continuous program of agenda building.

Civil Liability Against Prison Officials for Inmate-On-Inmate Assault: Where are We and Where Have We Been?

1995 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL S. VAUGHN ◽  
ROLANDO V. DEL CARMEN
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Correctional Facilities ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Statistical Frequency ◽  
Civil Liabilities ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
The U.S

This article focuses on civil liabilities imposed on prison officials for inmate-by-inmate assault in correctional facilities. After briefly discussing the statistical frequency of inmate-by-inmate assault, the article examines Farmer v. Brennan, a case on inmate-by-inmate assault decided in 1994 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Through an analysis of 96 pre-Farmer cases on inmate assault decided in the U.S. circuit courts of appeals, the article outlines the parameters under which officials might be held liable in post-Farmer litigation. The article concludes that the circumstances and situations under which prison officials are liable will not sufficiently change because the realities of judicial decision making may make it difficult for individual judges to distinguish between pre-Farmer and post-Farmer standards.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document