Bargaining on the U.S. Supreme Court: Justices' Responses to Majority Opinion Drafts

1999 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 485-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
James F. Spriggs ◽  
Forrest Maltzman ◽  
Paul J. Wahlbeck
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals Agenda Control, the Median Justice, and the Majority Opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court

2007 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 890-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris W. Bonneau ◽  
Thomas H. Hammond ◽  
Forrest Maltzman ◽  
Paul J. Wahlbeck
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Agenda Control ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Median Justice ◽  
The U.S

Confucianism and Same-Sex Marriage

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Tongdong Bai
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Confucian Values ◽  
The U.S

Abstract In the majority opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court over same-sex marriage, a claim by Confucius was quoted, which led to an uproar among Confucian scholars in mainland China. In this article, I will first explain the background of the debate over same-sex marriage in the United States, and why Confucius's claim was quoted. I will then show how a contemporary Confucian philosopher Zhang Xianglong addressed the issue of same-sex marriage from a Confucian perspective. In my view, compared with other mainland Confucians' responses, Zhang's are one of the most scholarly and moderate responses that nevertheless follow Confucian values. But he eventually rejected same-sex marriage on the Confucian ground. I will argue that, based on some Confucian values and principles which are shared by Zhang, we can answer Zhang's concerns with same-sex marriage, thus offering an even more moderate Confucian stance that accepts same-sex marriage. But this stance is still different from the typical liberal one. We will also see that, in order to accept same-sex marriage, it is the liberals, not the Confucians, who will have to deal with an issue—the acceptance of polygamy—that poses a serious challenge to the principle of equality, which is fundamental to some liberals.

The Politics of Dissents and Concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 488-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAUL J. WAHLBECK ◽  
JAMES F. SPRIGGS ◽  
FORREST MALTZMAN
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Logit Model ◽  
Multinomial Logit Model ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Institutional Constraints ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Burger Court ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Individual Justice ◽  
The U.S

Why do justices author or join separate opinions? Most attempts to address the dynamics of concurrence and dissent focus on aggregate patterns across time or courts. In contrast, we explain why an individual justice chooses to author or join a separate opinion. We argue that separate opinions result from justices' pursuit of their policy preferences within both strategic and institutional constraints. Using data from the Burger Court (1969 to 1985 terms), we estimate a multinomial logit model to test the influence of these factors on justices' decisions to join or author a regular concurrence, a special concurrence, or a dissent, as opposed to joining the majority opinion. Our results show that this choice reflects the justices' conditional pursuit of their policy preferences. We also disentangle the decision to join or author separate opinions, and we find that the latter decision is also influenced by the time remaining in the Court's term.

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document