Timothy R. Johnson focuses on an all-too-often ignored aspect of the Supreme Court's decision-making process by providing a systematic explanation of how justices use oral arguments to make substantive legal and policy decisions. Using the arguments filed to the Court in legal briefs, oral argument transcripts, notes taken by Justice Lewis F. Powell during oral arguments, conference notes and internal memos of justices, and Court opinions, the book analyzes justices' behavior during these proceedings. The result is an impressive account demonstrating that justices use oral arguments to gather...
Timothy R. Johnson focuses on an all-too-often ignored aspect of the Supreme Court's decision-making process by providing a systematic explanation of ...
Throughout their time in office, American presidents are often forced to choose between leading the nation and leading their party. In an earlier time when the major parties were less polarized, this leadership dilemma, while challenging, was not nearly as vexing as it is today. American presidents now find themselves with little room to maneuver, compelled to serve the Constitution on the one hand and yet caught within bitter partisan disputes and large numbers of unaffiliated voters on the other. The contributors to this volume investigate how recent presidents have navigated these...
Throughout their time in office, American presidents are often forced to choose between leading the nation and leading their party. In an earlier time...
How does the language of legislative statutes affect judicial behavior? Scholars of the judiciary have rarely studied this question despite statutes being, theoretically, the primary opportunity for legislatures to ensure that those individuals who interpret the law will follow their preferences. In Checking the Courts, Kirk A. Randazzo and Richard W. Waterman offer a model that integrates ideological and legal factors through an empirical measure of statutory discretion. The model is tested across multiple judicial institutions, at both the federal and state levels, and reveals that...
How does the language of legislative statutes affect judicial behavior? Scholars of the judiciary have rarely studied this question despite statutes b...
In Constitutionalism, Executive Power, and the Spirit of Moderation, contributors ranging from scholars to practitioners in the federal executive and judicial branches blend philosophical and political modes of analysis to examine a variety of constitutional, legal, and philosophical topics. Part 1, "The Role of Courts in Constitutional Democracy," analyzes the proper functions and limits of the judiciary and judicial decision making in constitutional government. Part 2, "Law and Executive Authority," reflects on the tensions between constitutionalism and presidential leadership in...
In Constitutionalism, Executive Power, and the Spirit of Moderation, contributors ranging from scholars to practitioners in the federal executi...
Do US Supreme Court justices withdraw from cases when they are supposed to? What happens when the Court is down a member? In Ethics and Accountability on the US Supreme Court, Robert J. Hume provides the first comprehensive examination of the causes and consequences of recusal behavior on the Supreme Court. Using original data, and with rich attention to historical detail including media commentary about recusals, he systematically analyzes the factors that influence Supreme Court recusal, a process which has so far been shrouded in secrecy. It is revealed that justices do not strictly...
Do US Supreme Court justices withdraw from cases when they are supposed to? What happens when the Court is down a member? In Ethics and Accountabil...