Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T14:35:33.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Court Leadership, Agenda Transformation, and Judicial Dissent

A European Case of a “Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Henrik Litleré Bentsen
Henrik Litleré Bentsen*
Affiliation:
University of Bergen
*
Contact the author at [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The previous literature debates whether rising rates of dissent are best explained by changes in court leadership and the composition of justices or by greater judicial discretion and changes in agenda. This article examines the influential hypotheses derived from the literature in the relevant and testable European case of the Supreme Court of Norway. It shows that the rising rate of dissent in the Court in the 1990s was mainly catalyzed by fundamental changes to the Court’s discretionary power and by its newfound agenda to work more actively with the development of the law and the protection of human rights.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 2018 , pp. 189 - 213
Copyright
© 2018 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to Gunnar Grendstad, Eric Waltenburg, William Shaffer, Jon Kåre Skiple, Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde, Mark McKenzie, and Lee Epstein for helpful comments. The article is better for their advice. I presented earlier versions of this article at the Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, and at the Seventy-Third Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association in 2015. I am grateful for the comments offered on the article at these and other venues. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are mine.

References

Amaral-Garcia, Sofia, Garoupa, Nuno, and Grembi, Veronica. 2009. “Judicial Independence and Party Politics in the Kelsenian Constitutional Courts: The Case of Portugal.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6 (2): 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bårdsen, Arnfinn. 2014. “The Norwegian Supreme Court and Strasbourg: The Case of Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway.” German Law Journal 15 (7): 1293–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Gann Hall, Melinda. 1993. “Integrated Models of Judicial Dissent.” Journal of Politics 55 (4): 914–35.Google Scholar
Brennan, William J. 1985. “In Defense of Dissents.” Hastings Law Journal 37:427–38.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Zorn, Christopher J. W.. 1998. “Of Time and Consensual Norms in the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (3): 874–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., Gulati, G. Mitu, and Posner, Eric A. 2010. “Professionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather Than Appointed Judiciary.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 26 (2): 290–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. 2010. Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., Steigerwalt, Amy, and Ward, Artemus. 2013. The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank N., and Lindquist, Stefanie. 2006. “Doctrinal and Strategic Influences of the Chief Justice: The Decisional Significance of the Chief Justice.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154:1665–1707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowe, Justin. 2007. “The Forging of Judicial Autonomy: Political Entrepeneurship and the Reforms of William Howard Taft.” Journal of Politics 69 (1): 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielski, David J. 1986. “Causes and Consequences of Conflict and Its Resolution in the Supreme Court.” In Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts, ed. Goldman, Sheldon and Lamb, Charles M. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, H. J.. 2001. “The Norm of Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (2): 362–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follesdal, Andreas, and Wind, Marlene. 2009. “Introduction: Nordic Reluctance towards Judicial Review under Siege.” Nordisk tidsskrift for menneskerettigheter 27 (2): 131–41.Google Scholar
Garoupa, Nuno. 2010a. “Empirical Legal Studies and Constitutional Courts.” Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 5 (1): 25–64.Google Scholar
Garoupa, Nuno. 2010b. “Explaining Constitutional Review in New Democracies: The Case of Taiwan.” Pacific Rim Law and Policy Review 20 (1): 1–40.Google Scholar
Garoupa, Nuno, Gomez-Pomar, Fernando, and Grembi, Veronica. 2011. “Judging under Political Pressure.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 29 (3): 513–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Tracey. 2001. “Court Fixing.” Arizona Law Review 43 (9): 9–62.Google Scholar
Grendstad, Gunnar, Shaffer, William R., and Waltenburg, Eric N. 2015. Policy Making in an Independent Judiciary: The Norwegian Supreme Court. Colchester: ECPR.Google Scholar
Grendstad, Gunnar, Shaffer, William R., and Waltenburg, Eric N. 2017. The Norwegian Supreme Court Database. University of Bergen and Purdue University.Google Scholar
Halpern, Stephen C., and Vines, Kenneth N. 1977. “The Judges’ Bill and the Role of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Western Political Quarterly 30 (4): 471–83.Google Scholar
Hanretty, Chris. 2012. “Dissent in Iberia: The Ideal Points of Justices on Spanish and Portugese Constitutional Tribunals.” European Journal of Political Research 51:671–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanretty, Chris. 2013. “The Decisions and Ideal Points of British Law Lords.” British Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 703–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G., and Spriggs, James F. II. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L. 1992. “Leadership and Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 54 (4): 1158–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendershot, Marcus E., Hurwitz, Mark S., Noble Lanier, Drew, and Pacelle, Richard L. Jr. 2013. “Dissensual Decision Making: Revisiting the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms within the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (2): 467–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Martinek, Wendy L. 2006. Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2009. “The Judicialization of Politics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, ed. Caldeira, Gregory A., Kelemen, Daniel R., and Whittington, Keith E.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2011. “The Nordic Counternarrative: Democracy, Human Development, and Judicial Review.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 9 (2): 449–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmøyvik, Eirik. 2007. “Årsaker til utviklinga av prøvingsretten i Norge og Danmark.” Tidsskrift for rettsvitenskap 120 (5): 718–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hönnige, Christoph. 2009. “The Electoral Connection: How the Pivotal Judge Affects Oppositional Success at European Constitutional Courts.” West European Politics 32 (5): 963–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Charles Evan. 1936. The Supreme Court of the United States: Its Foundations, Methods, and Achievements; An Interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kelemen, Katalin. 2013. “Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts.” German Law Journal 14 (8): 1345–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Helen, and Stone Sweet, Alec, eds. 2008. A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinander, Morten. 2016. “Fra tilbakeholdenhet til aktivisme—Nyere utviklingstrekk i forholdet mellom rett og politikk i Høyesterett.” Lov og rett 55 (3): 141–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Cross, Frank B. 2009. Measuring Judicial Activism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matningsdal, Magnus. 2006. “Høyesterett som straffedomstol etter to-instansreformen.” Lov og rett 7:430–59.Google Scholar
Mestad, Ola. 2015. “Dissensens alvor: Om nyare dissensar i Høgsterett.” In Lov, sannhet, rett: Norges Høyesterett 200 år, ed. Schei, Tore, Skoghøy, Jens Edvin A., and Øie, Toril. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Moorhead, R. Dean. 1952. “The 1952 Ross Prize Essay: Concurring and Dissenting Opinions.” American Bar Association Journal 38 (10): 821–24.Google Scholar
Narayan, Paresh Kumar, and Smyth, Russel. 2007. “What Explains Dissent on the High Court of Australia? An Empirical Assessment Using a Cointegration and Error Correction Approach.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4 (2): 401–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostberg, C. L., and Wetstein, Matthew E. 2007. Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C. L., Wetstein, Matthew E., and Ducat, Craig R. 2004. “Leaders, Followers, and Outsiders: Task and Social Leadership on the Canadian Supreme Court in the Early ’Nineties.” Polity 36 (3): 505–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacelle, Richard L. Jr., 1991. The Transformation of the Supreme Court’s Agenda: From the New Deal to the Reagan Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Pritchett, Herman C. 1948/2014. The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values, 1937–1947. Repr. New Orleans: Quid Pro Books.Google Scholar
Robberstad, Anne. 2016. “Viljen til å skape lov og Grunnlov.” Lov og rett 55 (1): 46–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83:557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, William R., Grendstad, Gunnar, and Waltenburg, Eric N. 2015. “Is Diversity Just for Show? Diversity and Appointment to the Norwegian Supreme Court, 1945–2011.” Rætferd 38 (1): 18–42.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin, and Stone Sweet, Alec. 2002. On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skiple, Jon Kåre, Grendstad, Gunnar, Shaffer, William R., and Waltenburg, Eric N. 2016. “Supreme Court Justices’ Economic Behavior: A Multilevel Model Analysis.” Scandinavian Political Studies 39 (1): 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carsten. 1975. “Domstolene og rettsutviklingen.” Lov og rett, 292–319.Google Scholar
Smyth, Russel. 2003. “Explaining Historical Dissent Rates in the High Court of Australia.” Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 41 (2): 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Russel. 2004. “What Explains Variations in Dissent Rates? Time Series Regression Evidence from the High Court.” Sydney Law Review 26:221–40.Google Scholar
Smyth, Russel. 2005. “The Role of Attitudinal, Institutional, and Environmental Factors in Explaining Variations in the Dissent Rate on the High Court of Australia.” Australian Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 519–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Russel, and Kumar Paresh, Naryan. 2004. “Hail to the Chief! Leadership and Structural Change in the Level of Consensus on the High Court of Australia.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1 (2): 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Szmer, John, and Johnson, Susan W. 2011. “Explaining Dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunde, Jørn Øyrehagen. 2011. “Dissenting Votes in the Norwegian Supreme Court, 1965–2009: A Legal Cultural Analysis.” Rechtskultur 1:59–73.Google Scholar
Sunde, Jørn Øyrehagen. 2015. Høgsteretts historie 1965–2015. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
Tate, Neal, and Vallinder, Torbjörn, eds. 1995. The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Tiede, Lydia B. 2016. “The Political Determinants of Judicial Dissent: Evidence from the Chilean Constitutional Tribunal.” European Political Science Review 8 (3): 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Sidney S. 1986. “Dissent Patterns of Chief Justices.” In Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts, ed. Goldman, Sheldon and Lamb, Charles M. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2007. “The Politics of International Judicial Appointments: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights.” International Organization 61:669–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J., Spriggs, James F., and Maltzman, Forrest. 1999. “The Politics of Dissent and Concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Politics Research 27 (4): 488–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Thomas G., Epstein, Lee, and Dixon, William J. 1988. “On the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms in the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 50 (2): 361–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, Ola. 2008. “The Reception Process in Sweden and Norway.” In A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on the National Legal Systems, ed. Keller, Helen and Stone Sweet, Alec. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar