Group Formation and Precedent

Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 33)

Abstract

This chapter combines historical evidence and social-psychology insights to contend that “coherent” Supreme Courts—those with five or more Justices who agree on crucial issues—are far more likely to overrule precedents, and to aggressively attempt to create broad precedents, than are “incoherent” Courts. The author explains the social-psychology dynamics that contribute to the formation (or absence) of coherent Court majorities. He then surveys three historical periods to illustrate the divergent behavior of coherent versus incoherent Courts: the post-1936 New Deal Court, which was highly coherent on most issues and thus ambitious in both overturning and establishing precedent; the Warren Court, which was incoherent and cautious before 1962 but became coherent and aggressive thereafter; and the Rehnquist Court, which was incoherent on most issues (dominated by two centrist swing Justices) and thus adopted a minimalist approach toward precedent. The author concludes with a preliminary analysis of the Roberts Court, suggesting that it is generally incoherent and therefore reluctant to formally overrule precedent in most areas.

Keywords

Impression Management Supreme Court Majority Coalition Interstate Commerce Federal Election Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackerman B (1999) Taxation and the Constitution. Columbia Law Rev 99(1):1–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. A regrettable decision (1960) New York Times, March 2Google Scholar
  3. Arrow H, McGrath J, Berdahl J (2000) Small groups as complex systems. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum L (2006) Judges and their audiences: a perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum L, Devins N (2010) Why the Supreme Court cares about elites, not the American people. Georgetown Law J 98(6):1515–1581Google Scholar
  6. Berger R (1984) The activist legacy of the new deal court. Wash Law Rev 59(4):751–793Google Scholar
  7. Caplan L (2012) “The most conservative Supreme Court”, taking note (blog), New York Times, October 1, http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/the-most-conservative-supreme-court/?ref=affordablecareact
  8. Cushman B (2000) Formalism and realism in Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Univ Chicago Law Rev 67(4):1089–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devins N (2008) Ideological cohesion and precedent (or why the court only cares about precedent when most justices agree with each other). N C Law Rev 86(5):1399–1442Google Scholar
  10. Devins N, Federspiel W (2010) The Supreme Court, social psychology, and group formation. In: The psychology of judicial decision making. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eastland T (1993) The tempting of Justice Kennedy. Am Spectator 26(2):32–37Google Scholar
  12. Epstein L, Jacobi T (2008) Super medians. Stanford Law Rev 61(1):37–99Google Scholar
  13. Epstein L, Knight J (1998) The choices justices make. CQ Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Forsyth DR (1999) Group dynamics, 3rd edn. Wadsworth Publishing Co., BelmontGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedman B (2010) The wages of stealth overruling (with particular attention to Miranda v. Arizona). Georgetown Law J 99(1):1–63Google Scholar
  16. Friedman LM (2002) The Rehnquist Court: some more or less historical comments. In: Belsky M (ed) The Rehnquist Court: a retrospective. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 143–158Google Scholar
  17. Funston RY (1977) Constitutional counterrevolution? The Warren Court and the Burger Court: judicial policy making in modern America. Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillman H (2001) What’s law got to do with it? Judicial behavioralists test the ‘legal model’ of judicial decision making. Law Soc Inq 26(2):465–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenburg JC (2007) Supreme conflict: the inside story of the struggle for control of the United States Supreme Court. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Heck E (1980) Justice Brennan and the heydey of Warren court liberalism. Santa Clara Law Rev 20(3):841–887Google Scholar
  21. Irons PH (1982) The New Deal lawyers. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirman I (1995) Standing apart to be a part: the precedential value of Supreme Court concurring opinions. Columbia Law Rev 95(8):2083–2119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lazarus E (2003) “The pivotal role of justice Anthony Kennedy: why the Supreme Court’s romantic may only become more influential over time”, Findlaw’s Writ, August 3, 2003, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20030807.html
  24. Leary MR (1996) Self-presentation: impression management and interpersonal behavior. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  25. Maltzman F, Wahlbeck PJ (1996) Strategic policy considerations and voting fluidity on the Burger Court. Am Pol Sci Rev 90(3):581–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murphy WF (1962) Congress and the Court: a case study in the American political process. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Nagel RF (2006) Bowing to precedent. Wkly Stand 11(29):24–28Google Scholar
  28. Palmer B (1999) Issue fluidity and agenda setting on the Warren Court. Pol Res Q 52(1):39–65Google Scholar
  29. Peters CJ (2008) Under-the-table overruling. Wayne Law Rev 54(3):1067–1104Google Scholar
  30. Posner RA (2008) How judges think. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  31. Powe LA Jr (2002) The Warren Court and American politics. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Reagan R (1983) The public papers of the presidents of the United States, book 1. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Reagan R (1984) Abortion and the conscience of the nation. Thomas Nelson Publishers, NashvilleGoogle Scholar
  34. Republican Party Platform of 1984 (1984) Republican National Convention Committee on Resolutions, Congressional Quarterly Almanac 40/55-B (1984)Google Scholar
  35. Roosevelt F (1938) The public papers and addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, volume two, the year of crisis, 1933. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosen J (2005) Rehnquist the great? Atl Mon 295(3):79–90Google Scholar
  37. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ (2002) The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwartz B (1993) A history of the Supreme Court. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Sunstein CR (2006) Problems with minimalism. Stanford Law Rev 58(6):1899–1918Google Scholar
  40. Tushnet M (1993) The Warren Court as history: an interpretation. In: Tushnet M (ed) The Warren Court in historical and political perspective. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp 1–35Google Scholar
  41. Tushnet M (2005) A court divided: the Rehnquist Court and the future of constitutional law. W. W. Norton & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Urofsky MI (2001) The Warren Court: justices, rulings, and legacy. ABC-CLIO, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  43. Warren E (1977) The memoirs of Earl Warren. Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  44. Whittington KE (2005) Congress before the Lochner Court. Boston Univ Law Rev 85(3):821–858Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawCollege of William & MaryWilliamsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations