This study isolates the impact of certain factors upon the decision making of the United States Supreme Court. Selected group theory methodology is applied to the Court's decisions from 1969 through 1973. The group structure of the Court, the impact of personnel change, and the effect of judicial attitudes on public policy are explored and statistically measured with a chisquare. Schubert's bloc analysis and a Guttman scale are used to order the data. Conclusions include that two stable blocs existed on the Court during these years. Personnel change is demonstrated as causative of alterations in judicial behavior. Seven of eight groups of cases are shown to stimulate values of the Justices. Suggestions are made for further research.

The focus of this investigation is the relationship of the United States Supreme Court's functional performance to its environment. Three functions of courts are noted in the literature: conflict resolution, social control and administration. These functions are operationalized for the United States Supreme Court. Hypotheses are developed relative to the general performance of these three functions by all courts. Box-Jenkins time series analysis is then used to test these hypotheses in relation to the performance of the United States Supreme Court. The primary analysis rests upon a data set that includes all non-unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court from 1916 to 1986. A supplemental analysis is conducted using all formal decisions for the 1953 to 1986 period. The results suggest that intellectual resources, legal resources, modernization, and court discretion are significant influences on the functional performance of the United States Supreme Court. Future research must consider these influences in the development of a general theory of courts.

Studies of the Supreme Court consistently show that the Office of the Solicitor General enjoys remarkable success before the Supreme Court, both at the certiorari stage and at the merits stage. These studies offer a variety of explanations for Solicitor General success, but fail to portray accurately the Office of the Solicitor General and to account for variations in governmental success. This paper seeks to continue the exploration of governmental success. By looking at the Office of the Solicitor General as a series of individuals with distinct characteristics rather than as a single entity, and by accounting for various situational dynamics, I attempt to explain the variations in executive success.

This study analyzes activist behavior of Supreme Court justices in 132 decisions which struck down congressional statutes as unconstitutional in 1789-1990. Analysis of the justices' activist rates and liberalism scores demonstrate that these votes are ideologically based. Integrated models containing personal attribute and case factor variables are constructed to explore the votes as activist behavior. The same models are also tested with a new dependent variable constructed to measure the nullification votes as liberal votes. The models which explain the votes as ideological responses better explain the votes than the models which explain the votes as activism or restraint. The attribute variables offer better explanation in the late 20th century models and the case factors offer better explanation in the early period models.

No description available.

The purposes of the following thesis is to research United States Supreme Court sex-discrimination jurisprudence and ascertain if Fourteenth Amendment legislative history was used, referred to, cited to, or quoted from, by the Supreme Court Justices in their opinions regarding sex-discrimination cases since the Amendment was ratified in 1868. Legislative history is a window into the drafting, debating, and intricate crafting of laws and amendments. When words and phrases that are used in the statutes, codes, and amendments are ambiguous or unclear, judges and justices should use the legislative history to ascertain the intent of the framers of the legislation. The methodology that was employed for this thesis was through the researching of all relevant United States Supreme Court cases as to what was written by the Justices in their opinions. Research was conducted into the relevant law review articles on the subject of legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, Supreme Court sex-discrimination jurisprudence, and the historical impact of Court decisions on the law relative to sex-discrimination. After extensive research, it was discovered that the United States Supreme Court has established over 144 years' worth of sex-discrimination jurisprudence. The law review article research revealed that the lack of legislative history research by the Court has not gone unnoticed by the legal community or the women's rights community since the Fourteenth Amendment was originally drafted. The research and analysis of the sources of sex-discrimination from cases, law review articles, and books on the subject, led to the conclusion that no Fourteenth Amendment legislative history was ever used by the Supreme Court of the United States as part of its development of sex-discrimination jurisprudence.

No description available.

This study will remain with the role of the Supreme Court, and then only with its role in the character of interpretation as far as the necessitation of a new type of police power is concerned.

The theory proposed here is that the Supreme Court behaves in a strategic manner at the agenda-setting stage in order to vote sincerely on the merits. To test this, I measure the impact issue salience and ideological distance between Congress and the Supreme Court has on the agenda. The results indicate that whether the Supreme Court behaves either sincerely or strategically depends on the policy area. The strategic nature of the Supreme Court at the agenda-setting phase may be in large part why some research shows that the Court behaves sincerely when voting on the merits. By behaving strategically at the agenda-setting phase, the Court is free to vote sincerely in later parts of the judicial process.

This thesis assesses three United States Supreme Court opinions, engaging in an inductive approach to generic criticism, in an attempt to discover whether or not there are similarities and/or differences in these decisions. This study focuses on draft card, flag, and cross burning cases argued before the Court in order to discover the potential genre's characteristics.