And, she notes, it is open to visitors. A party who loses in a lower federal court or in a state supreme court (if the case involves a federal question) may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.11 When the appeal, or petition, is submitted, the clerk of the Court provides notice to the respondent (i.e., the winner in the lower court). Greenhouse points out that many things have changed since the time the U.S. Constitution was written. Every year, the justices decide to hear about 100 cases. Friday conference is therefore reserved for cases argued on Wednesdays.21 These meetings, held in the conference room that adjoins the chief’s chambers, are completely private. Once approved, justices hold their positions for life. As a further example, the new interpretation of the commerce clause laid down in Wickard v. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. Petitioners are allowed a reply to the respondent’s brief, but it must be submitted at least one full week before oral arguments are heard, and no more than 30 days after the respondent’s brief is filed. Very few powers are granted to the minority in the federal government. briefs, the first hurdle to winning review by the Court is making the “discuss list.” This list includes all petitions for review the justices will discuss and formally vote on during their weekly conference meetings. One of the current disagreements related to the Supreme Court is how the justices should think about, well, thinking. He concludes that many of these cases are probably unimportant, and should therefore be left off of the plenary docket. While justices may have many goals, conventional wisdom in the study of judicial politics suggests that the main goal of most Supreme Court justices is the attainment of policy in line with their personal preferences (Segal & Spaeth, 2002; Maltzman, Spriggs, & Wahlbeck, 2000). First, different justices employed different tactics in attempting to move policy closer to a preferred point. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. For instance, Stevens (1983) argues that the Rule of Four comes into play in about 25% of all cases that make the discuss list. In addition, it seems that, at some point, the justices could no longer handle such long sessions. That the justices make such references to precedents in private memos suggests that they act as if they, themselves, are constrained to follow these decisions. Rather it simply means they could not agree to hear the present case. The answer is not even one person. Understanding this process will allow scholars, students of the Court, and Court watchers alike to gain a better understanding of the way in which the justices conduct their business and to come to terms with some of the most important legal and political decisions in our nation’s history. In the context of the Court, legal institutions may constrain a justice’s ability to make certain decisions. Indeed, Burger often changed his initial votes to join the majority coalition, cast “phony votes” by voting against his preferred position, and sometimes declined to express an initial position at conference (see Woodward & Armstrong, 1979; Epstein & Knight, 1998). In addition, many did not support equality among people of different races or between women and men. Recent work by Bonneau, Hammond, Maltzman, and Wahlbeck(2007) adds to this body of work by incorporating a legal status quo. Whatever justices decide, their ruling is final – unless lawmakers and the public decide to change the Constitution, or unless the Supreme Court overrules itself later. 15. Today, and since 1970, the time allotted for these has been limited to 30 minutes per side. The Due Process Clause has proven very important in the Court’s shaping of policy through this power. The very next day Brennan signed the opinion after making a few minor suggestions, Stewart made known his intentions of writing a dissenting opinion, White declared he would await Stewart’s dissent before signing any opinion, and Stevens attempted to bargain with Blackmun. The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. If the chief justice votes with the majority at the end of a case discussion he has the authority to choose who write the majority opinion.27 This prerogative helps him influence the Court’s agenda because he can select either an author whose opinion is close to his own preferences or one who will minimize the prospective policy loss if the chief’s preferred outcome does not prevail (Epstein & Knight, 1998; Maltzman, Spriggs, & Wahlbeck, 2000). Applied to Supreme Court scholarship, the median justice is the swing vote and so may reject an opinion that falls too far from his ideal point. In one case, for instance, Davis (1940) points out that Webster and his rival argued for a full ten days. While Murphy did not systematically test his theory, others have done so. Note, however, that when the Court is in one of its two-week argument sessions the justices hold only Friday conferences. Empirical work on the Rule of Four focuses almost exclusively on how it affects the size of the Court’s docket each term. Further, scholars should consider how the choice of language in the Court’s opinions affects lower court decisions and how the public views the justices’ policy choices. Second, the central debate concerned specific aspects of policy, and not simply a decision to reverse or affirm the lower court’s ruling. Debates the attorneys have with judges. Decisional Tracks. This behavior led one critical justice to point out that, “all too damned often the Chief Justice will vote with the majority so as to assign the opinion, and then he ends up in dissent” (Schwartz, 1990, p. 14). States can also propose them with a two-thirds majority, and the holding of a convention for proposing the amendments. In the 2012 term, for example, multiple amicus briefs were filed in 67 of the 76 cases granted review. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Black et al. These works are progeny of Murphy (1964), who argued that justices are rational actors and act as such when deciding cases. process) the justices do discuss a large number of possible cases each term. Normally, a state supreme court has the last word on state laws. The voting to … While the politics of the House and Senate make it unlikely that any given piece of legislation will be brought to a vote, any member may still attempt to introduce such a law. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan explained the process in which the Supreme Court makes decisions. There are three main models of the judicial decision-making that explain how judges come to a solution: legal, attitudinal and strategic. Recall that the Supreme Court has the judicial power to interpret the law. First, justices are appointed by the president and approved by Congress.