Suchergebnisse

In this study, we examine whether the unique institutional position of the chief justice & the concomitant opportunities afforded its occupants to influence the US Supreme Court's decisionmaking affect the behavior of individuals who are promoted to the center chair. We theorize that incumbents of that office will change their behavior systematically to advance their broad set of goals, notably including the protection of the Court's institutional cohesiveness & legitimacy. Using data that cover more than a century of Supreme Court history (1894-1996), we examine whether the chief justice will concur & dissent less frequently, write fewer individual opinions, & moderate his policy views to attain those goals. We find that the place of the chief justice within the decisional structure of the Court, in part, serves to create an incentive structure associated with a systematic decrease in the number of concurring & dissenting votes cast & separate opinions written. Our results also imply that the office of the chief justice is associated with more moderate expressions of policy goals in economics & civil liberties-civil rights decision-making, which were the bulk of the Court's agenda during the period of analysis. 2 Tables, 2 Appendixes, 102 References. Adapted from the source document.

There is substantial evidence that intolerance arises from perceptions of difference. A prevailing view holds that even if intolerance is understandable as a defense mechanism, or as an attitude intended to ward off threatening groups and noxious activities, it often is the result of human irrationality and indulgence of prejudice. This conclusion is supported by studies that seem to demonstrate the apparent irrelevance of the actual level of threat to levels of intolerance. These studies show human actions attendant to diversity are caused by established convictions (i.e., prejudice) rather than by the degree of threat. However, informed by theoretical approaches provided by neuroscientists, we report findings that threat is, indeed, a provocative factor that modifies political tolerance in predictable ways. Previous studies defined threat as probabilistic assessments of the likelihood of bad events. When threat is defined as novelty and normative violations (i.e., as departures from expected, or normal, occurrence), then consistent relationships to intolerance are obtained.

We seek to explore the opinion assignments of Chief Justices from 1888 to 1940 using three models: the organizational, institutional, & attitudinal models. Methods. We empirically examine opinion assignments from 1888 to 1940 through a data set that the authors have collected. Results. We find that earlier Chief Justices made assignments based on institutional & organizational criteria rather than for ideological reasons. Conclusions. We believe this difference is most likely related to contextual factors that have changed for the modern Court. 1 Table, 26 References. Adapted from the source document.