Share the story of what Open Access means to you
University of Michigan needs your feedback to better understand how readers are using openly available ebooks. You can help by taking a short, privacy-friendly survey.
Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court
Matthew P. Hitt
You don't have access to this book. Please try to log in with your institution.
Log in
The United States Supreme Court exists to resolve constitutional disputes among lower courts and the other branches of government, allowing elected officials, citizens, and businesses to act without legal uncertainty. American law and society function more effectively when the Court resolves these ambiguous questions of Constitutional law. Since lower courts must defer to its reasoning, the Court should also promulgate clear and consistent legal doctrine, giving a reason for its judgment that a majority of justices support.
Yet a Court that prioritizes resolving many disputes will at times produce contradictory sets of opinions or fail to provide a rationale and legal precedent for its decision at all. In either case, it produces an unreasoned judgment. Conversely, a Court that prioritizes logically consistent doctrine will fail to resolve many underlying disputes in law and society. Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court demonstrates that over time, institutional changes, lobbied for by the justices, substantially reduced unreasoned judgments in the Court's output, coinciding with a reduction in the Court's caseload. Hence, the Supreme Court historically emphasized the first goal of dispute resolution, but evolved into a Court that prioritizes the second goal of logically consistent doctrine. As a result, the Court today fails to resolve more underlying questions in law and society in order to minimize criticism of its output from other elites. In so doing, the modern Court often fails to live up to its Constitutional obligation.
Yet a Court that prioritizes resolving many disputes will at times produce contradictory sets of opinions or fail to provide a rationale and legal precedent for its decision at all. In either case, it produces an unreasoned judgment. Conversely, a Court that prioritizes logically consistent doctrine will fail to resolve many underlying disputes in law and society. Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court demonstrates that over time, institutional changes, lobbied for by the justices, substantially reduced unreasoned judgments in the Court's output, coinciding with a reduction in the Court's caseload. Hence, the Supreme Court historically emphasized the first goal of dispute resolution, but evolved into a Court that prioritizes the second goal of logically consistent doctrine. As a result, the Court today fails to resolve more underlying questions in law and society in order to minimize criticism of its output from other elites. In so doing, the modern Court often fails to live up to its Constitutional obligation.
-
Cover
-
Title Page
-
Copyright Page
-
Dedication
-
Contents
-
List of Figures
-
List of Tables
-
Acknowledgements
-
Preface
-
Chapter 1 Introduction
-
The Purpose of a Supreme Court
-
The Fundamental Irreconcilability of Decisiveness and Consistency
-
Motivating a Theory of Unreasoned Judgment
-
A Theory of Inconsistency
-
Jurisdiction Condition
-
Case Characteristics Condition
-
Preference Condition
-
Doctrinal Condition
-
-
Looking Forward
-
-
Chapter 2 Measuring Unreasoned Judgments
-
Unreasoned Judgment: Formal Definition
-
Unreasoned Judgments Vary in Visibility
-
Plurality Decisions as Doctrinal Paradoxes
-
Opinions Per Curiam as Unreasoned Judgments
-
Properties of Argued and Nonargued Per Curiams
-
The Rate of Unreasoned Judgments
-
Properties of Unreasoned Judgments
-
Conclusion
-
-
Chapter 3 The Emergence of Unreasoned Judgments in Individual Cases
-
Introduction
-
Operationalizing the Case-Level Theory of Unreasoned Judgment
-
Data
-
Results
-
Discussion: Court Curbing and the Doctrinal Paradox
-
Conclusion
-
-
Chapter 4 The Supreme Court’s Evolution away from Unreasoned Judgment
-
Introduction
-
Unreasoned Judgment over Time
-
Agenda Control and Unreasoned Judgment
-
Descriptive Analysis
-
Control Variables
-
-
Analysis
-
Discussion
-
Conclusion
-
-
Chapter 5 The Deference Shown to Unreasoned Precedents
-
What Is Precedent?
-
Types of Citations across a Judicial Hierarchy
-
Measuring Precedent
-
Criticizing Unreasoned Judgments
-
Data
-
An Alternative Test of Construct Validity: Conflict Cases
-
Control Variables
-
Results
-
Conclusion
-
-
Chapter 6 Does Congress Curb an Inconsistent Court?
-
How Congress Curbs the Court
-
Institutional Responses Beyond Curbing Are Limited and Unsuccessful
-
Can the Court Inspire Curbing with Unreasoned Judicial Review?
-
Can the Court Inspire Curbing via Unreasoned Judgment?
-
Multivariate Analysis
-
Conclusion
-
-
Chapter 7 Unreasoned Judgment and Public Support For the U.S. Supreme Court
-
Decision Attributes and Institutional Support
-
Experimental Design
-
Results
-
The Moderating Effects of Knowledge
-
Discussion and Conclusion
-
-
Chapter 8 Do We Need a New “Inferior” Court? Concluding Thoughts
-
Judicial Review
-
Circuit Conflicts
-
Implications for Judicial Behavior
-
Where Do We Go from Here?
-
Future Directions
-
Where Do Societies Want Inconsistency?
-
-
Appendix A Unreasoned Judgment Mathematical Definitions
-
Appendix B Technical Details and Supplemental Analyses
-
Chapter 2
-
Chapter 3
-
Chapter 4
-
Chapter 5
-
Chapter 6
-
Chapter 7
-
-
Appendix C Experimental Materials
-
Demographic Materials
-
Supreme Court Knowledge
-
Political Knowledge
-
Experimental Treatments
-
Outcome Variables
-
Manipulation Checks
-
-
Notes
-
References
-
Index
Citable Link
Published: 2019
Publisher: University of Michigan Press
- 978-0-472-13136-5 (hardcover)
- 978-0-472-12522-7 (ebook)