No description available.

No description available.

Judicial politics scholars routinely posit that the behavior of Supreme Court justices is motivated in important part by concerns of institutional maintenance, that is, by a desire to maintain the Court’s unusually large store of institutional legitimacy. Previous work on this topic, however, has focused almost exclusively on the influence of such motivation on judicial decision making. We contend that if institutional maintenance is an important goal, it should be observable in other contexts as well. We examine televised mass-media interviews with Supreme Court justices from 1998 to 2016 and find that legitimacy reinforcement is the predominant goal reflected in justices’ rhetoric in those interviews.

<p>This thesis is mainly a critical examination of Professor Mark C. Murphy’s theory of defectiveness. In his view, being backed by decisive reasons for action is a standard internal to legality, to the property of being law, such that a law or a legal system that is not backed by decisive reasons for action fails to measure up and thus, is <em>defective</em> qua law or legal system. Following a short introduction, I will devote chapter I to presenting Professor Murphy’s theory of defectiveness in the context of his defence of the natural law tradition. In the remaining two chapters, I shall state and assess two types of argument in support of this main thesis. Chapter II is concerned with the functional argument, which holds that law’s characteristic activity, thus law’s function, is to provide dictates backed by decisive reasons for action. I criticize Murphy’s account claiming that his explanation is bereft of a causal mechanism that links certain characteristic activities with certain effects, which is the main element of non-agentive functional explanations. The different type of argument that attempts to present the presence of decisive reasons as a non-defectiveness condition of illocutionary acts in general, and thus for legal illocutionary acts, is considered in chapter III. Here, I argue that Murphy’s position is not supported by the orthodox theory of illocutionary acts. From this I conclude that we have reason to doubt Professor Murphy’s success in providing an appropriate theory of legal defectiveness.</p> / Master of Arts (MA)

No description available.

While rankings of presidents are quite common, rankings of Supreme Court justices are much rarer. Herein I produce one and make use of both to see if perceived greatness of one actor can effect perceptions of greatness for the other. This work examines those influences that indicate success for Supreme Court Justices by seeking to determine what the historically great justices have in common. I first develop a composite score of all the Supreme Court Justices based on the limited previous ranking research and relevant indictors to rank the Justices 1-112. Next, I examine potential indicators of such success; previous experience, personal characteristics, conformation vote, and most interestingly the perceived greatness of their appointing president. This research finds a direct relationship between perceptions of presidential greatness and perceptions of judicial quality. Overall the great Justices are statistically more likely to be appointed by a great president, consistent with the appointment literature that often describes an appointer-appointee relationship as a legacy impacting one.

Hyperbole is the common response in the wake of any Supreme Court decision, but which cases have a lasting negative impression and why? This work seeks to clarify which rulings of the Court cause consternation among several different audiences. Through an experimental framework I conduct an examination of reactions to rulings in controversial cases among political scientists, legal scholars, and the public. I discover that there are some commonalities among the respondents, but also significant disagreement along issue areas, particularly cases decided based on economic property rights. Additionally I observe that partisan ideology has little impact on the perception of historic decisions, but in contemporary rulings the opposite is discovered. This finding suggests that time serves to mitigate partisan bias in evaluating the Supreme Court. Ultimately this work details information concerned with responses to previous Court decisions, but also provides context clues for predicting various reactions to future controversial rulings.

No description available.

This study is an analysis of a policy, The Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638), and consists of a survey designed to examine the perceptions of selected Indian tribal leaders regarding the policy. The findings of the survey are reviewed and analyzed and the study is concluded with a consideration of the implications of the findings for social work. In general, the study is concerned with an aspect of the social policy process. A specific policy is addressed and a survey of perceptions of people effected by that policy was taken. The policy itself is an indication of a seemingly new attitude of the federal government toward Indian people. If this is so, this change is a significant departure from traditional attitudes and will affect the social service system as it relates to Indians as well as most other aspects of Indian life. Indian Self-Determination is a new term for Indian people.

Book Summary: Thoroughly updated and featuring 75 new entries, this monumental four-volume work illuminates past and present events associated with civil rights and civil liberties in the United States. This revised and expanded four-volume encyclopedia is unequaled for both the depth and breadth of its coverage. Some 650 entries address the full range of civil rights and liberties in America from the Colonial Era to the present. In addition to many updates of material from the first edition, the work offers 75 new entries about recent issues and events; among them, dozens of topics that are the subject of close scrutiny and heated debate in America today. There is coverage of controversial issues such as voter ID laws, the use of drones, transgender issues, immigration, human rights, and government surveillance. There is also expanded coverage of women's rights, gay rights/gay marriage, and Native American rights. Entries are enhanced by 42 primary documents that have shaped modern understanding of the extent and limitations of civil liberties in the United States, including landmark statutes, speeches, essays, court decisions, and founding documents of influential civil rights organizations. Designed as an up-to-date reference for students, scholars, and others interested in the expansive array of topics covered, the work will broaden readers' understanding of―and appreciation for―the people and events that secured civil rights guarantees and concepts in this country. At the same time, it will help readers better grasp the reasoning behind and ramifications of 21st-century developments like changing applications of Miranda Rights and government access to private Internet data. Maintaining an impartial stance throughout, the entries objectively explain the varied perspectives on these hot-button issues, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.