1975
DOI: 10.2307/1072255
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Supreme Court, the Adversary System, and the Flow of Information to the Justices: A Preliminary Inquiry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1977
1977
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…That Court has greater control over its docket than other courts, and it often selects cases precisely "because of the general importance of the issues" implicated in them. 84 Some Canadian commentators have similarly argued that courts are uniquely situated to review the substance of legislation because they see the direct effect of policies on individuals through the cases tried before them. 85 What this argument misses, however, is that individual cases are often "outliers," and do not reflect the general effect of the policies in question.…”
Section: Empirical Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…That Court has greater control over its docket than other courts, and it often selects cases precisely "because of the general importance of the issues" implicated in them. 84 Some Canadian commentators have similarly argued that courts are uniquely situated to review the substance of legislation because they see the direct effect of policies on individuals through the cases tried before them. 85 What this argument misses, however, is that individual cases are often "outliers," and do not reflect the general effect of the policies in question.…”
Section: Empirical Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These difficulties hinder the communication of expected consequences to individuals and institutions affected by the decisions, leading to frustration and inhibiting compliance. 96 To sum up: the principal barrier to judicial policy-making is that its attempt to solve complex and multi-faceted policy problems through decision-making techniques designed to resolve concrete disputes strains the information gathering, processing, and evaluating capacity of adjudication. In order to ease this strain, both litigants and courts tend to choose "easy" cases, to emphasize the familiar and highly visible procedural elements of those cases and to avoid complex underlying issues.…”
Section: Empirical Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The principal sources of data that are available to a judge are the facts of the specific case, which must be discerned from amidst the shouted claims of the plaintiff and defendant, and the facts of the reported cases, which some prior judge discerned from similarly tendentious arguments. 145 The principal means of determining the effects of a decision is to receive a petition from one side to enforce or modify its terms. Judges generally cannot commission research on alternative solutions, they cannot conduct experiments concerning their preliminary choices, and they cannot evaluate the impact of their ultimate conclusions.146 Given the current structure of our judicial system, empirical information of this kind will not be available unless it has appeared in published scholarship.…”
Section: B the Effectiveness Of Legal Scholarshipmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ultimately, poor compliance with, and the weak impact of, judicially formulated policies can be traced back to the adjudicative process's difficulty in gathering and processing social/legislative facts. These difficulties hinder the communication of expected consequences to individuals and institutions affected by the decisions, leading to frustration and inhibiting compliance (Miller andBarron 1975: 1222).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%