Although federal agencies are normally likely to win when they appear before the Supreme Court, it is not clear what affects the outcome of the cases. Several factors are thought to play a role and scholars seek to identify and explain them, but it is difficult because the Court changes over time. A key theme seen in all of the articles is to determine if the justices’ ideological and policy preferences affect the outcome of the case. By looking at articles published by Crowley (1987), Deen (2005), Richards (2006), Sheenan (1990; 1992), Smith (2007) and Tanenhaus (1960), the coverage of different types of agencies, time periods, key factors in decision making, and consistency will better explain variations in the overall rate of success. …show more content…
The key questions asked in this article involve the type of agency, presidential administration, consistency, and justices’ ideological preferences. Different from previous articles, Deen splits the Rehnquist Court into two periods to see if the presidency had any effect on the data. From the data, Deen found that the Court support rate for social issues is not nearly as high as those for economic issues. There was also differences in success rates for the different presidential time periods. The Rehnquist Court was more successful during the earlier rather than the later period. There was also found to be differences in support levels between individual justices. It appears that the both the type of outcome sought and the attitude of the individual justice play a role in the outcome of the …show more content…
The attitudinal model says the interaction between justices’ attitudes and the agency’s policy direction will impact how the justices vote. The legal model states justices will be more likely to defer after chevron, and the jurisprudential model says justices consider whether or not the case involves rule making or if congress spoke on the issue both pre and post-chevon. Although the data demonstrated that attitudes matter, there was more support saying justices were more likely to defer after Chevron and whether or not the case involved rule-making or if congress spoke on the issue mattered. This article concluded that Chevron did impact the way the justices’ voted, so Chevron did change the way the Court
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Although a portion of Leuchtenburg’s evidence supporting his opinion on which case constituted a constitutional revolution involved the shift in the Court’s decision-making, the question of the reason for the shift in the Court begs to be explained. At the time, during the case of West Coast v. Parrish, the court seemed to be in sorts fueled by politics. The Justices were concerned with the consequences that could very well up rise from their reluctance to approve the standard legislation. In other words, they may have shifted their votes in hopes of saving the traditional foundation. Justice Roberts’ voting decisions would then need to be closely examined seeing that he supported the liberal side in 1934 concerning the case of Nebbia v. New York, supported the conservative side in 1935-1936 concerning the Rail Pension and Tipaldo, and then returned to suppor...
The conceptual foundation of the U.S. Constitution is that there is a checks and balance system within the government that was developed to ultimately protect the rights of the people. In Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), there is an ongoing string of rulings from multiple appeals, for multiple rulings, that derived from a single case. What is interesting to note is that the original charge in the case is not the same charge for the most recent ruling. The actual case that is being heard in the Supreme Court is for civil damages. Although the law is being followed in allowing for the checks and balances to take place, the history of this case took place over a period of nine years from 1977-1986. One could question the efficiency of public administration in delivering a timely decision. As each case reached a ruling, another appeal needed to be submitted for the new justification of the ruling. Many different actions were submitted for review based on the different findings for each new ruling. A mentioned previously, this process was completed over a nine year period, and in accordance
“NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES.” The Oyez Project. llT Chicago-Kent College Of Law, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
federal courts: A content analysis based on agency theory. PhD diss., The George Washington University.
When Jefferson came into office, he planned to institute the policies of the Democratic-Republicans in domestic affairs. The judicial system had gained a lot of power through the Federalists which forced Jefferson to attempt to shrink their influence. He ultimately prevailed, and even reduce...
... and reform. Yet, it is in my opinion that his article is of such significance because of its logistic explanation of such frequent and high volume Court case reforms. Author Mark Graber in The Lessons of Dred Scott, claimed that decision rendered by Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney in 1865 was unavoidable, simply because the decision was consistent with the times of the era (Graber, p.7). This conditionality of politics concerning political environments is evident in Kagan as well, providing both political scientists and students alike with the knowledge that Courts do and often will act not only for the majority, but also more explicitly towards the persuasion tactics of every outlet of both private and public political participation, which provides a necessary and comprehensive evaluation of the American way of law unknown to many, including myself until today.
In the article "Unanimity Disagreement on The Supreme Court" the author Cass R. Sunstein, " explains three main goals in his/her article, is to propose an account of voting patterns within the Supreme Court over time. As we shall see, it is merely a modest oversimplification to say that the Court has had two eras, divided by a single year: 1941. Before that year, the Court was overwhelmingly likely to settle cases without either dissents or separate concurrences, and 5-4 divisions were exceedingly rare. Along with explaining those rules, including the rise of the norm of consensus, the shift in 1941, and the relative stability of the post-1941 period. The pre-1941 period was an imposition, brought about largely by the power of tradition
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Including banking, the stock exchanges, and the workplace. In the last half of the twentieth century federalism was the central issue in both black and women’s civil rights. It was at the heart of a redefinition of criminal justice by the Warren Court .The liberal interpretation of it by this court in turn became the target of a conservative attempt to diminish congressional power under the doctrine of “original intent” and to use the federal judiciary to return more authority to state and local government. At the beginni...
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung. 2003. The Supreme Court Historical Society. 22 April 2003.
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012
The Supreme Court has been active in the past decades in review of democratic morality policies. The judicial review of state and local laws is important for organizations to use policy-making tools to show a direct link between the courts and other officials. The constitution has a significant impact on policy adoption and how these impacts are sometimes at the conditional of state political power. Morality policies raises important constitutional questions that are answered by the US Supreme Court, these questions involv...