Swineherds and Hogs on Ice: Leadership Impacts for State Chief Judges

2021 ◽  
pp. 1532673X2198901
Author(s):  
Thomas Gray ◽  
Banks Miller
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Leadership ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Random Chance ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Better Than

Chief judges stand as visible leaders of their courts. Analyses of the Supreme Court focus on the role of the chief justice as an institution-builder seeking out public-facing consensus to protect Court legitimacy. Studying the powers of chief judges and political leadership in general is difficult. Analyzing all 50 states over 16 years we find no evidence that the identity of chief judges explains consensus behavior any better than random chance. This is true even among the subset of chief judges with additional institutional powers like opinion assignment. We show that court structures explain consensus, while leader features do not. Being chief judge correlates with an elevated likelihood of being in the majority, particularly in cases decided by one vote. These results add to our understanding of leadership on courts and imply that the office of chief judge at the state level is more symbolic than uniquely powerful.

Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on Constitutional Questions: 1914–1917. I

1918 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Reed Powell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Republican Nomination

In previous issues of this Review Professor Wambaugh and the late Judge McClain have summarized the decisions of the Supreme Court on constitutional questions from 1909 to 1914. It is the purpose of this and a succeeding paper to deal in like manner with the decisions of the last three years. Owing to the number of cases decided during the triennium, the writer must content himself with the rôle of annalist and refrain from assuming that of analyst. For the benefit of those who desire fuller comment or criticism, references are given to articles and notes in various legal periodicals discussing the more important cases.Since the expiration of the October term of 1913, three changes have occurred in the personnel of the bench. Mr. Justice Lurton died July 12, 1914, and his successor, Mr. Justice McReynolds, took his seat October 12, 1914. Illness prevented Mr. Justice Lamar from participating in any of the decisions of the October term of 1915. He died on January 2, 1916. The commission of Mr. Justice Brandeis, who succeeded him, was not recorded until June 5, 1916, so that during the 1915 term only eight justices participated in the work of the court. Mr. Justice Hughes resigned June 10, 1916, to accept the Republican nomination for the presidency, and his successor, Mr. Justice Clarke, took his seat on October 9, 1916. The bench as at present constituted consists of Chief Justice White, appointed associate justice by President Cleveland and chief justice by President Taft; Mr. Justice McKenna, appointed by President McKinley; Justices Holmes and Day, appointed by President Roosevelt; Justices Van Devanter and Pitney, appointed by President Taft; and the three new justices appointed by President Wilson.

scholarly journals The Interaction of the Parliament and the Judiciary of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
pp. 258-264
Author(s):  
Alexey S. Koshel ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Russian Empire ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Russian Empire

The article discusses the constitutional problems of consolidation, implementation and improvement of the mechanism of interaction between the parliament and higher courts in parliamentary procedures. The research methods are analysis, synthesis, normative (formal-logical), and historical-legal. The key aim of the study is to identify a mechanism for ensuring the control function of the parliament to control the implementation in the Russian Federation of laws adopted by the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The author came to the following conclusions. In recent years, the higher courts of the Russian Federation have been more actively involved in the work on improving legislation in various ways. At the same time, in his annual address to the Federal Assembly on January 15, 2020, President of Russia Vladimir Putin outlined proposals to strengthen the role of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the legislative process. Since 2008, a trend has been outlined in Russia to strengthen the control powers of the parliament. One of the most important control powers of the Russian Federal Assembly, fixed in the Federal Law “On Parliamentary Control”, is, in the author’s opinion, the study of the application of laws (legal monitoring), the development of proposals for their improvement. However, along with the annual reports of the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation at the Federation Council regarding effectiveness of legislation, it is seen necessary to oblige the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to present reports on judicial practice in the State Duma. The Supreme Court, realizing the constitutional function of summarizing the judicial practice of the courts of the Russian Federation and developing a uniform interpretation of the norms of the law, often quite independently eliminates legal gaps, sometimes developing new legal rules, which is not fully consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers in continental law systems. Such new rules are developed within the framework of not only procedural law, but also substantive (civil and criminal) law. In fairness, it is worth noting that this is not a modern trend, it is the Russian practice that has developed over centuries: the Senate of the Russian Empire, being the highest court, developed new legal rules long before the legislator. All this, of course, does not fully correspond to the role of the court in the continental legal system. However, the same Senate of the Russian Empire, in accordance with the decree of Emperor Alexander I, also had the right to inform the emperor of the need to improve legislation. In this regard, taking into account the historical parallel, the author comes to the conclusion that there is an urgent need for Russia to introduce the annual practice of the Supreme Court’s reports to the State Duma as part of the parliamentary legal monitoring of legal gaps and conflicts identified by the Supreme Court when summarizing judicial practice, with its proposals for improving legislation.

Selection of Justices and Judges

2020 ◽  
pp. 141-146
Author(s):  
Danny M. Adkison ◽  
Lisa McNair Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Selection Of

This chapter highlights Article VII-B of the Oklahoma constitution, which concerns the selection of justices and judges. Section 1 states that “the provisions of this Article shall govern the selection and tenure of all Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma.” Section 2 sets forth the procedure for a judicial officer to run for unlimited additional terms of office. The provision in Section 3 creates a Judicial Nominating Commission, which possesses jurisdiction to determine whether the nominees for judicial office meet applicable requirements, and to determine the existence of vacancies on the commission. In the event of a judicial vacancy, Section 4 instructs the Judicial Nominating Commission to submit the names of three nominees to the governor and the chief justice of the supreme court. Section 5 sets forth the specific parameters of judicial terms of office. In an attempt to prohibit political partiality by judges, Section 6 prohibits judges from making contributions to, or holding office in, a political entity. Lastly, Section 7 concerns the effective date of Article VII-B.

Managing the Supreme Court: The Chief Justice, Management, and Consensus

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Daniel Ura ◽  
Carla M. Flink
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Public Management ◽  
Judicial Politics ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court

In this article, we draw on a prominent model of public management to develop a preliminary theoretical approach to understanding the role of the chief justice in Supreme Court decision-making. In particular, we argue that the Court may seek legitimacy through greater unanimity and discuss how the leadership of the chief justice can facilitate that effort. We assess a hypothesis derived from this theory, showing greater agreement among the justices as the incumbent chief justice’s tenure in office increases. We argue that these results provide support for further attention to and development of a public administration-based approach to the study of Supreme Court decision-making. The application of public administration to judicial politics provides further evidence of management dynamics in American institutions.

scholarly journals Virginia

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mason Heidt
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Coalbed Methane ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Ownership Rights

This Article addresses developments in Virginia oil and gas law for the period from July 31, 2014 to July 31, 2019. This period is longer than normally addressed by this journal to capture important developments in the law between this update and the last Virginia update published in 2015. At the state level, in Swords Creek Land Partnership v. Belcher, the Supreme Court of Virginia concluded coalbed methane (“CBM”) is a separate and distinct mineral estate from coal. It held that the meaning of “coal” within an 1887 severance deed was unambiguous and did not intend to convey ownership rights to the CBM.1 This decision reaffirmed and expanded the Court’s previous holding in Harrison-Wyatt. In Dye v. CNX Gas Co., the Court held that a deed conveying “all coal and minerals” was also unambiguous and with the addition of the “and minerals” language constituted a transfer of CBM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document