A more global court? A call for a new perspective on judicial globalization and its effect on the U.S. Supreme Court

The Company They Keep

10.1093/oso/9780197539156.001.0001 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Lawrence Baum ◽

Neal Devins

Keyword(s):

Political Parties ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Political Party ◽

Political Polarization ◽

Dominant Ideology ◽

Partisan Polarization ◽

The People ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

New Perspective ◽

The U.S

Today’s ideological division on the U.S. Supreme Court is also a partisan division: all the Court’s liberals were appointed by Democratic presidents, all its conservatives by Republican presidents. That pattern never existed in the Court until 2010, and this book focuses on how it came about and why it’s likely to continue. Its explanation lies in the growing level of political polarization over the last several decades. One effect of polarization is that potential nominees will reflect the dominant ideology of the president’s political party. Correspondingly, the sharpened ideological division between the two political parties has given presidents stronger incentives to give high priority to ideological considerations. In addition to these well-known effects of polarization, The Company They Keep explores what social psychologists have taught us about people’s motivations. Justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. In an era of strong partisan polarization, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological elites, and justices such as Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg live in milieus populated by like-minded elites that reinforce their liberalism or conservatism during their tenure on the Supreme Court. By highlighting and documenting this development, the book provides a new perspective on the Court and its justices.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s1073110500012912 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 197-198

Author(s):

Joseph R. Zakhary

Keyword(s):

Public Relations ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Federal Trade Commission ◽

Ninth Circuit ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

For Profit ◽

Rule Of Reason ◽

Antitrust Analysis ◽

Business Financing ◽

The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Get full-text (via PubEx)