If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website. Show If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked. This is a preview. Log in to get access Abstract It is commonly assumed that Supreme Court justices' votes largely reflect their attitudes, values, or personal policy preferences. Nevertheless, this assumption has never been adequately tested with independent measures of the ideological values of justices, that is, measures not taken from their votes on the Court. Using content analytic techniques, we derive independent and reliable measures of the values of all Supreme Court justices from Earl Warren to Anthony Kennedy. These values correlate highly with the votes of the justices, providing strong support for the attitudinal model. Journal Information The American Political Science Review (APSR) is the longest running publication of the American Political Science Association (APSA). APSR, first published in November 1906 and appearing quarterly, is the preeminent political science journal in the United States and internationally. APSR features research from all fields of political science and contains an extensive book review section of the discipline. In its earlier days, APSR also covered the personal and personnel items of the profession as had its predecessor, the Proceedings of the APSA. Publisher Information Founded in 1903, the American Political Science Association is the major professional society for individuals engaged in the study of politics and government. APSA brings together political scientists from all fields of inquiry, regions, and occupational endeavors. While most APSA members are scholars who teach and conduct research in colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad, one-fourth work outside academe in government, research, organizations, consulting firms, the news media, and private enterprise. For more information about the APSA, its publications and programs, please see the APSA website. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. This is a preview. Log in to get access Abstract We test arguments from the legal model claiming that United States Supreme Court justices will follow previously established legal rules even when they disagree with them; i.e., that they are influenced by stare decisis. Because of the institutional features facing Supreme Court justices, we argue that justices who dissent from or otherwise disagree with Supreme Court precedents established in landmark cases are free not to support those decisions in subsequent cases. A systematic content analysis of the votes and opinions of dissenting Supreme Court justices in a random sample of landmark decisions and their progeny. Overwhelmingly, Supreme Court justices are not influenced by landmark precedents with which they disagree. We replicate the research for nonlandmark decisions and find similar results. Alone among the justices studied, only Potter Stewart and Lewis Powell show any systematic support for stare decisis at all. Journal Information The American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), published four times each year, is one of the most widely-read political science journals in the United States. AJPS is a general journal of political science open to all members of the profession and to all areas of the discipline of political science. JSTOR provides a digital archive of the print version of American Journal of Political Science. The electronic version of American Journal of Political Science is available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code;=ajps. Authorized users may be able to access the full text articles at this site. Publisher Information The Midwest Political Science Association, founded in 1939, is a national organization of more than 2,800 political science professors, researchers, students, and public administrators from throughout the United States and over 50 foreign countries. The association is dedicated to the advancement of scholarly communication in all areas of political science. Each year the association sponsors a three-day conference of political scientists in Chicago for the purpose of presenting and discussing the latest research in political science. More than 2,000 individuals participate in this conference, which features 300 panels and programs on politics. The MPSA is headquartered at Indiana University. For further information, contact William D. Morgan, Executive Director, email: . Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Which of the following best explains the principle of stare decisis?Which of the following best explains the principle of stare decisis? It encourages judges to follow precedent when deciding cases.
How does stare decisis impact judicial decisions quizlet?Stare decisis is a legal document that requires the court to rule the same as they did on older cases as they do on new similar cases. Basically it requires the court to follow legal precedents that were earlier established by the court. Judicial decisions usually defer to its previous rulings because of stare decisis.
What is stare decisis what role does it play quizlet?Stare decisis is a doctrine in which judges are obligated to follow the precedents established in prior decisions. In stare decisis, lower court must obey past decisions made by higher courts. This doctrine generally provides for fairness and consistency, which is important in ensuring everyone is treated equally.
Which term best describes stare decisis?Stare decisis is a legal term that refers to the doctrine of precedent, well established in common law – court rulings being guided by previous judicial decisions. The term is derived from a Latin phrase that means “to stand by things decided” or “let the decision stand.”
|
Which of the following statements best explains how stare decisis influences supreme court justices?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 berikutyang Inc.
