2 options
Inconsistency and indecision in the United States Supreme Court / Matthew P. Hitt.
- Format:
- Book
- Author/Creator:
- Hitt, Matthew P., 1985- author.
- Language:
- English
- Subjects (All):
- United States. Supreme Court--Decision making.
- United States.
- United States. Supreme Court.
- Judiical process--United States.
- Judiical process.
- Law--Political aspects.
- Law.
- Decision making.
- Genre:
- Electronic books.
- Physical Description:
- 1 online resource (207 pages)
- Place of Publication:
- Ann Arbor, Michigan : University of Michigan Press, [2019]
- System Details:
- text file
- Summary:
- The United States Supreme Court exists to resolve constitutional disputes among lower courts and the other branches of government, allowing elected officials, citizens, and businesses to act without legal uncertainty. American law and society function more effectively when the Court resolves these ambiguous questions of Constitutional law. Since lower courts must defer to its reasoning, the Court should also promulgate clear and consistent legal doctrine, giving a reason for its judgment that a majority of justices support. Yet a Court that prioritizes resolving many disputes will at times produce contradictory sets of opinions or fail to provide a rationale and legal precedent for its decision at all. In either case, it produces an unreasoned judgment. Conversely, a Court that prioritizes logically consistent doctrine will fail to resolve many underlying disputes in law and society. Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court demonstrates that over time, institutional changes, lobbied for by the justices, substantially reduced unreasoned judgments in the Court's output, coinciding with a reduction in the Court's caseload. Hence, the Supreme Court historically emphasized the first goal of dispute resolution, but evolved into a Court that prioritizes the second goal of logically consistent doctrine. As a result, the Court today fails to resolve more underlying questions in law and society in order to minimize criticism of its output from other elites. In so doing, the modern Court often fails to live up to its Constitutional obligation.
- Notes:
- Includes bibliographical references (pages 188-200) and index (pages 201-207).
- Description based on information from the publisher.
- Access Restriction:
- Restricted for use by site license.
The Penn Libraries is committed to describing library materials using current, accurate, and responsible language. If you discover outdated or inaccurate language, please fill out this feedback form to report it and suggest alternative language.