Suchergebnisse

The true significance of policy articulations by appellate courts lies in the behavioral responses of relevant parties below. Actions consistent with the intent of appellate sources is dependant on effective communication between message source and message recipient. Limiting focus to the U.S. Supreme Court as an appellate source, two measures of effective communications are developed. These measures incorporate two dimensions of comprehension difficulty: message structure and the familiarity of the reader with constitutional language. The article also suggests 13 hypotheses pertaining to relative communicative success or failure, several of which are tested briefly.

The political processes which invite research and the investment of associated resources are those identified as signiscant by the political theories to which we give credence. Though Democratic Pluralism is the most popular explanation of the political system in the United States, its ability to explain Supreme Court behavior cannot be evaluated, for observation of the processes by which Court agendas for national policy making purposes are constructed is not encouraged. The remedy lies in a new and broader perspective which directs attention to a number of institutional actions and incumbent behaviors until now slighted, if not ignored.

In making review decisions, Supreme Court justices are predisposed to support underdogs and upperdogs. disproportionately but, also, are motivated to hide any "bias" that may be at work in determining votes.In balancing these two values, justices may be expected to vote their "bias" more frequently (1) when that vote will determine outcome, and (2) when the "bias" will be harder to detect. The latter goal may be served by voting the "bias" more frequently in close cases and less frequently otherwise.In an analysis of the voting patterns of five justices in the decade 1947–56, I found that two liberal and two conservative justices conformed to these expectations. A fifth, or control justice, defined as neither liberal nor conservative, did not pattern his votes in the manner predicted for liberals and conservatives. This relationship held when four projected intervening variables were controlled individually and collectively.

IT HAS BEEN HYPOTHESIZED THAT VARIATION IN JUDGES' DECISIONS IS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIATION IN SOCIOLOGICAL BACKGROUNDS & CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JUDGES THEMSELVES. 14 JUSTICES WHO SAT IN THE COURT IN 10 TERMS, 1947-75 WERE USED TO ANALYZE WHETHER VARIATIONS OCCURRED BETWEEN THE JUDGES. RATE OF SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT WAS USED AS A DEPENDENT VARIABLE & 12 INDICATORS WERE USED TO SUPPORT RATE INCLUDING: (1) AGE AT APPOINTMENT, (2) HIGHEST DEGREE RECEIVED, (3) STATUS OF SCHOOL GRANTING DEGREE, (4) SIZE OF PLACE OF BIRTH, (5) SIZE OF PLACE OF LAST LAW PRACTICE, (6) STATE LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE, (7) FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE, (8) SERVICE ON AN APPELLATE BENCH, (9) FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE, (10) RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, (11) PUBLIC OFFICE BEFORE APPOINTMENT, & (12) PARTY AFFILIATION. THESE 12 VARIABLES ACCOUNT FOR 91.8% OF THE VARIANCE IN SUPPORT FOR STATE & FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS IN CRIMINAL CASES. 3 VARIABLES HAVE MORE POWER: (A) AGE AT APPOINTMENT, (B) FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE, & (C) RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. THE FINDINGS SUGGEST THE NEED FOR BROADER STUDIES IN THE JUDICIAL FIELD OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. 3 TABLES. B. MILLER.