An Integrated Case-Related Model of Judicial Decision Making: Explaining State Supreme Court Decisions in Judicial Review Cases

1992 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 543-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig F. Emmert
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Related Model ◽  
State Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions

Executive Influence on State Supreme Court Justices: Strategic Deference in Reappointment States

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 422-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R Gray
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Substantial Influence ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
State Supreme Court

Abstract State supreme court justices are often the final arbiters of cases in their jurisdictions. Yet, in states that grant governors the power to selectively reappoint supreme court justices, justices’ independence is limited. These governors are able to monitor justices’ decisions and are empowered to remove justices whose jurisprudence conflicts with the governor’s preferences. This power gives governors substantial influence over judicial decision-making by justices eligible for another term on the bench. I test this proposition on an exhaustive set of state supreme court criminal appeals from 1995 to 2010, and show that votes by justices who need to be reappointed covary with executive preferences, and more than votes by justices ineligible for reappointment. These effects are stable across time within a justice’s term so long as the serving governor may one day be their reappointer. I also show that these shifting individual votes lead to changes in outcomes for defendants.

Fragmentation of Power and the Emergence of an Effective Judiciary in Mexico, 1994–2002

2007 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Ríos-Figueroa
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Political Power ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Legal Reforms ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
Chamber Of Deputies

AbstractLegal reforms that make judges independent from political pressures and empower them with judicial review do not make an effective judiciary. Something has to fill the gap between institutional design and effectiveness. When the executive and legislative powers react to an objectionable judicial decision, the judiciary may be weak and deferential; but coordination difficulties between the elected branches can loosen the constraints on courts. This article argues that the fragmentation of political power can enable a judiciary to rule against power holders' interests without being systematically challenged or ignored. This argument is tested with an analysis of the Mexican Supreme Court decisions against the PRI on constitutional cases from 1994 to 2002. The probability of the court's voting against the PRI increased as the PRI lost the majority in the Chamber of Deputies in 1997 and the presidency in 2000.

Supreme Court Decisions on Electoral Rules after Mexico's 1994 Judicial Reform: An Empowered Court

2003 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 777-799 ◽  
Author(s):  
JODI FINKEL
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Power Balance ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Electoral Rules ◽  
Institutional Power ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
Ruling Party

In 1994 Mexico's ruling party granted new powers of judicial review and increased independence to the Mexican Supreme Court. Would these reforms enable the Court to overcome decades of judicial subordination? I examine all Mexican Supreme Court decisions addressing the constitutionality of electoral rules – rules that are inherently contentious because they determine the chances for obtaining power – during Zedillo's sexenio. These cases, culminating with a 1998 ruling counter to a key PRI political interest, demonstrate a fundamental change in Mexico's institutional power balance. This study also demonstrates the utility of electoral cases to evaluate Court power within and across countries.

scholarly journals Internalizing Contestation in Process-Based Judicial Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1167-1181
Author(s):  
Laura M. Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Constituent Power ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
European Stability Mechanism

AbstractThe cases challenging the European Stability Mechanism in Eurozone creditor states show the concern courts have with protecting and promoting democratic contestation. This Article shows how John Hart Ely’s theory of process-based review provides the theoretical basis for understanding how attention to democratic contestation contributes to the legitimacy of courts reviewing legislation against constitutional norms. By focusing on promoting democratic procedures, Ely argues that courts can avoid substantive decisions that are best left to the legislature. Yet, as my discussion of the constitutional theory of constituent and constituted powers shows, no form of constituted power can avoid some exercise of constituent power. In other words, even a process-based approach cannot avoid substantive judgments. The legitimacy of these decisions depends on the availability of avenues for contestation in the judicial decision-making process itself.

Predictions of Dangerousness: An Argument for Limited Use

1988 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 263-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Miller ◽  
Norval Morris
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Preferable Alternative ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
Intense Debate

Intense debate has focused on the use of statistical predictions of dangerousness in the criminal justice system. Two conflicting positions maintain wide support: that such predictions are never appropriate in criminal justice decision-making, and that they should be used far more often. Recognizing the fact that implicit and intuitive predictions are made every day in police, prosecutorial, sentencing, and other decisions, and explicit but unscientific predictions are common, this article suggests a theoretical framework justifying limited use of statistical predictions. Statistical predictions may present, in some instances, a morally preferable alternative to biased nonscientific and implicit judgments. Development of a sound jurisprudence of predictions faces major hurdles given the trend toward unscientific predictions in the law and the enormous judicial confusion in dealing with predictions. The concept has contributed to a string of notably poor Supreme Court decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document