Suchergebnisse

Annotation

The first book on the Supreme Court to incorporate extensive in-depth interviews with former justices, this study provides both insiders' accounts of how decisions are made and an empirical analysis of more than 3,000 Court decisions.

Interest in strategic approaches to an understanding of judicial decision making, including the implications of the separation of powers (SOP), has grown dramatically in recent years. Unfortunately, almost all the research on these SOP interactions has been limited to those involving the U.S. Supreme Court. Laura Langer's book provides a refreshing alternative to the exclusive Supreme Court focus by examining the significance of separation of powers concerns for the exercise of judicial review by state supreme courts.

For over three decades, numerous studies on the impact of the United States Supreme Court have made it obvious that the legal rules and policy preferences of the Court do not automatically determine the decisions of the lower courts. An extensive literature now exists to detail the nature and extent of the impact of the Supreme Court on the courts below. The picture of judicial impact that emerges from this literature is characterized by numerous differences in the way the "impact" of the Supreme Court is conceptualized. The present study explores the differences in interpretation that might result from the application of four separate approaches to the study of judicial impact. Each of these four methods is applied in turn to evaluate the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), on the highest state appellate courts in California, New York, North Carolina, Illinois, and Oklahoma.1

THIS STUDY TESTS THE INFLUENCE OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING BY EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF TORT REFORM IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE. LEGISLATORS WERE SURVEYED TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEIR SOURCES OF INFORMATION INCLUDED A RECENT REPORT ON THAT COMPLEX ISSUE AND WHETHER THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH ITS FINDINGS. MOST LEGISLATORS WERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE REPORT AND ITS FINDINGS BUT RELIED HEAVILY ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES, WHOSE MEMBERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE RESEARCH REPORT AND AWARE OF ITS FINDINGS. THESE RESULTS SUGGEST THAT STUDY OF LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SOURCES SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TWO-STEP FLOW OF INFORMATION AND DEFERENCE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.