Thesis (M.A.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1967. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

This paper will attempt to explore the history and function of judical disagreement behaviour using information from both the Canadian Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. The evolution of national high court decision making, highlights the changing role of courts within the political and public spheres, as well as the increasing authority courts have over policy. This changing role reinforces the need to study the role of courts on law. I will use minority opinions from the Laskin and Dickson courts to study what disagreement reveals about the decision making process. Judicial disagreement has largely been summed up into two deficient stereotypes: the dissent as "serious" disagreement and the separate concurrence as inferior disagreement to the dissent. I will dispel this fallacy by introducing the five categories created to describe a new way of thinking about judicial disagreement and to shatter the old stereotypes. / vii, 149 leaves ; 29 cm.

Society and institutions of government reinforce norms that constrain the behavior of individuals. Heteropatriarchal norms traditionally favor the perspective of white, male, heterosexual, reason, judicial restraint, and democratic authority over their binary, and minority, counterparts: black, female, homosexual, desire, judicial activism, and individual rights. According to the theory of Queer New Institutionalism, these dichotomous pairs are mutually dependent upon each other for definition and maintenance. The perpetuation of these binarisms is made through language, often assumed and unquestioned. However, the use of sexualized language and metaphors are identified in efforts to draw suspicion and consternation for these minoritized Others. When the presence of an Other is missing, those that would reinforce these norms being to skirt the line between the pairings, taking the position of the individual they would otherwise criticize. By utilizing critical discourse analysis, Supreme Court nomination hearings during the 109th and 111th Congresses were reviewed for support for the theory of Queer New Institutionalism. Senators and witnesses before the committee operated within the constraints of binary thinking and instances of sexualized and gendered language, as well as metaphors, were used to perpetuate these norms and link the nominees to the suspicion surrounding Others.