The Experts below are selected from a list of 201 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Elizabeth L. Gilmore - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Originalism , Pragmatic Conservatism, and Living Document Judicial Philosophies: Explaining Variation in U.S. Supreme Court Votes in Criminal Procedure Cases for the 1994–2014 Terms of Court
    American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2017
    Co-Authors: Kevin Buckler, Elizabeth L. Gilmore
    Abstract:

    Prior research on U.S. Supreme Court Justice votes and case outcomes has examined a variety of hypotheses to explain variation in voting and case decisions in criminal procedure matters. Largely ignored by prior work, however, is the notion that the effects of the measures used to examine these prior hypotheses may vary for the Justices based on the judicial philosophy espoused and followed by the Justice. This article identifies three distinct overarching judicial philosophies of law interpretation that have guided the Justices for much of the Rehnquist Court and the entirety of the Roberts Court: Originalism, Pragmatic Conservatism, and Living Document. It contextualizes the Information, Affected Groups, and Legal Issue hypotheses in a framework that considers their potential effects across Originalist, Pragmatic Conservative, and Living Document Justices on the Court for the 1994 through 2014 terms. The study finds that enhanced activity by special interest organizations (the Affected Groups Hypothesis) in support of the non-government other party impacts vote direction among Pragmatic Conservative and Living Document Justices but not for the Originalist Justices. It also finds more case type (Legal Issue) effects for Originalist Justices than for Pragmatic Conservative and Living Document Justices in that for Originalist Justices a vote for the government is less likely in cases that concern statutory meaning (relative to constitutional meaning). Implications are discussed.

Mimi Marquet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Kevin Buckler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Originalism , Pragmatic Conservatism, and Living Document Judicial Philosophies: Explaining Variation in U.S. Supreme Court Votes in Criminal Procedure Cases for the 1994–2014 Terms of Court
    American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2017
    Co-Authors: Kevin Buckler, Elizabeth L. Gilmore
    Abstract:

    Prior research on U.S. Supreme Court Justice votes and case outcomes has examined a variety of hypotheses to explain variation in voting and case decisions in criminal procedure matters. Largely ignored by prior work, however, is the notion that the effects of the measures used to examine these prior hypotheses may vary for the Justices based on the judicial philosophy espoused and followed by the Justice. This article identifies three distinct overarching judicial philosophies of law interpretation that have guided the Justices for much of the Rehnquist Court and the entirety of the Roberts Court: Originalism, Pragmatic Conservatism, and Living Document. It contextualizes the Information, Affected Groups, and Legal Issue hypotheses in a framework that considers their potential effects across Originalist, Pragmatic Conservative, and Living Document Justices on the Court for the 1994 through 2014 terms. The study finds that enhanced activity by special interest organizations (the Affected Groups Hypothesis) in support of the non-government other party impacts vote direction among Pragmatic Conservative and Living Document Justices but not for the Originalist Justices. It also finds more case type (Legal Issue) effects for Originalist Justices than for Pragmatic Conservative and Living Document Justices in that for Originalist Justices a vote for the government is less likely in cases that concern statutory meaning (relative to constitutional meaning). Implications are discussed.

Dan B Wood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the public and the Supreme Court individual Justice responsiveness to american policy moods
    American Journal of Political Science, 1997
    Co-Authors: Roy B Flemming, Dan B Wood
    Abstract:

    Theory: Individual Supreme Court Justices care about policy, but they must compete with popular institutions for policy control. They also care about their institution. In order to secure as much as they can of policy goals and protect their institution, they adjust policy decisions at the margins in response to mass public opinion. Hypotheses: Individual Supreme Court Justice liberalism depends on shifts in mass public opinion through time. Methods: We test hypotheses using pooled time series cross-section analysis, with the individual Justice-term as the unit of analysis. Results: Controlling for the changing composition of the Court, attitudinal inertia of Justices, and the strength of judicial ideologies, we find that public opinion directly affects decisions by individual members of the Court. We show that the result holds across various issue areas, is not restricted to only a few Justices, and that the Justices' responses are relatively quick with a lag of only one term.

Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Samuel a. Thumma & Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier, Appendix B: United States Supreme Court Justices Citing Dictionaries, from the Lexicon Has Become a Fortress: The United States Supreme Court's Use of Dictionaries
    2006
    Co-Authors: Samuel Thumma, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier
    Abstract:

    This appendix to The Lexicon Has Become a Fortress: The United States Supreme Court's Use of Dictionaries lists all United States Supreme Court Justices through the 1997-98 Term and every opinion where each Justice cited a dictionary. This appendix also lists the rate at which each Justice used dictionaries per year. The Article itself, available as a separate download, examines the use of dictionaries by the United States Supreme Court. Beginning with a short history of dictionaries and their use, the Article reviews the Supreme Court Justices' use of dictionaries in their opinions throughout the history of the Court. The Article is critical of the Justices' lack of consistency in their use of dictionaries, and it discusses problems with the use of general purpose dictionaries in legal opinions. In conclusion, the Article makes several suggestions regarding how dictionaries still may be used as an important aid in legal analysis. Other appendices to this Article are available as separate downloads. The appendices list (1) every term ever defined by a dictionary in a Supreme Court opinion; (2) every case where a Supreme Court Justice has used a dictionary in an opinion; and (3) every dictionary used by a Supreme Court Justice. An update to this appendix, also available for download, is included in Samuel Thumma and Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier, The Lexicon Remains a Fortress: An Update, 5 The Green Bag 51 (2001).

  • The Lexicon Remains a Fortress: An Update
    2006
    Co-Authors: Samuel Thumma, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier
    Abstract:

    The articles examine the use of dictionaries by the United States Supreme Court and in appendices they list (1) every term ever defined by a dictionary in a Supreme Court opinion; (2) every case where a Supreme Court Justice has used a dictionary in an opinion; and (3) every dictionary used by a Supreme Court Justice. This update evaluates the Supreme Court Justices continued use of dictionaries, noting that while they still rely upon dictionaries to a great degree, there are signs that the Justices might be becoming more concerned about the broad use of dictionaries in Court opinions.