All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Deciding to Agree: Explaining Consensual Behavior on the United States Supreme Court
Unformatted Document Text:  11 dissenting” (526). One must assume that Chief Justice Warren and Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall agreed with the majority opinion, as it is unstated. We suggest that express public accountability is another factor contributing to the rise of individual expression. In 1953, Justice Frankfurter explained that only majority opinions were formally assigned, “as for dissents and concurrences-that’s for each member to choose for himself” (Frankfurter 1953: 904). Yet, dissent assignment practices slowly formalized from the voluntarism described by Frankfurter to collegial cooperation and finally to senior responsibility (Cook 1995). Justice Black, the senior liberal justice, made some attempts during the Stone Court to assign dissents as did some subsequent senior coalition justices—including Frankfurter. However, the practice was not institutionalized until Justice Brennan took the initiative at the start of the Burger Court. Following Black’s departure, Brennan gingerly prodded his senior colleague, Justice Douglas, to formally assign dissents. After Douglas’ departure, Brennan assigned the opinion in every case he was in dissent, formalizing procedures in his own chambers and through assignment memoranda to his colleagues, which he circulated the day before or on the same day as the Chief’s majority opinion assignments. One of his goals in both circulating assignment memos and in selecting opinion writers was to solidify the minority coalition, thereby significantly undermining the ability of the Chief to achieve greater consensus (Cook 1995; Wood and Gansle 1997). Subsequent senior dissenters followed Brennan’s practice, and, when Rehnquist became Chief, he accepted the norm, writing matter-of-factly: “The senior justice among those who disagreed with the result reached by the majority at conference usually undertakes to assign the preparation of the dissenting opinion in the case if there is to be one” (Rehnquist 1987: 302). Still, the current practice is not always as cut-and-dry as majority-opinion assignment often is.

Authors: Corley, Pamela., Steigerwalt, Amy. and Ward, Artemus.
first   previous   Page 12 of 41   next   last



background image
11
dissenting” (526). One must assume that Chief Justice Warren and Justices Douglas, Brennan,
and Marshall agreed with the majority opinion, as it is unstated. We suggest that express public
accountability is another factor contributing to the rise of individual expression.
In 1953, Justice Frankfurter explained that only majority opinions were formally
assigned, “as for dissents and concurrences-that’s for each member to choose for himself”
(Frankfurter 1953: 904). Yet, dissent assignment practices slowly formalized from the
voluntarism described by Frankfurter to collegial cooperation and finally to senior responsibility
(Cook 1995). Justice Black, the senior liberal justice, made some attempts during the Stone
Court to assign dissents as did some subsequent senior coalition justices—including Frankfurter.
However, the practice was not institutionalized until Justice Brennan took the initiative at the
start of the Burger Court. Following Black’s departure, Brennan gingerly prodded his senior
colleague, Justice Douglas, to formally assign dissents. After Douglas’ departure, Brennan
assigned the opinion in every case he was in dissent, formalizing procedures in his own
chambers and through assignment memoranda to his colleagues, which he circulated the day
before or on the same day as the Chief’s majority opinion assignments. One of his goals in both
circulating assignment memos and in selecting opinion writers was to solidify the minority
coalition, thereby significantly undermining the ability of the Chief to achieve greater consensus
(Cook 1995; Wood and Gansle 1997).
Subsequent senior dissenters followed Brennan’s practice, and, when Rehnquist became
Chief, he accepted the norm, writing matter-of-factly: “The senior justice among those who
disagreed with the result reached by the majority at conference usually undertakes to assign the
preparation of the dissenting opinion in the case if there is to be one” (Rehnquist 1987: 302).
Still, the current practice is not always as cut-and-dry as majority-opinion assignment often is.


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 12 of 41   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.