Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:20:24.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Unpredictability of the Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Lawrence Baum
Lawrence Baum*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United States Supreme Court today is an object of intense speculation. After two decades of anticipation by Court watchers, the Court may be ready to enter a new era in its history. Commentators debate what the new era will look like, if it does indeed develop. Will the Court reject altogether its mission of protecting individual liberties? If so, what new role will it adopt?

Because the Supreme Court is an important and intriguing institution, such speculation is understandable. But ultimately, even the most perceptive observers have a limited capacity to predict the Court's direction as a policy maker. These difficulties in prediction reflect a fundamental reality about the Court: its path is not the inevitable product of the political and social forces that shape its behavior. Rather, less systematic factors can influence the Court's path, making the Court's role as a policy maker largely upredictable.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 683 - 688
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1992

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 would like to thank Carol Mock for her help in developing and presenting the ideas in this article. The article is a revision of a lecture sponsored by the Ohio State University Graduate School.

References

Balkin, J. M. 1989. “The Footnote.” North-western University Law Review 83:275–320.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1992. The Supreme Court, 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Commager, Henry Steele. 1943. “Judicial Review and Democracy.” Virginia Quarterly Review 19: 417–28.Google Scholar
Cover, Robert M. 1982. “The Origins of Judicial Activism in the Protection of Minorities.” Yale Law Journal 91: 1287–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1958. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law 6: 279–95.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review. 1983. “The Changing Social Vision of Justice Blackmun.” Harvard Law Review 96: 717–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hentoff, Nat. 1990. “The Constitutionalist.” New Yorker, March 12, pp. 45–70.Google Scholar
Jackson, Robert H. 1941. The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David A. 1989. “If Goldberg Hadn't Quit.” National Law Journal, August 21, p. 11.Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio. 1961. 367 U.S. 643.Google Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona. 1966. 384 U.S. 436.Google 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 Press.Google Scholar
Payne v. Tennessee. 1991. 115 L. Ed. 2d 720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W., ed. 1982. What If? Explorations in Social Science Fiction. Lexington, MA: Lewis Publishing.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1978. “The Supreme Court and the Constitution.” In The New American Political System, ed. King, Anthony. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 1966. 383 U.S. 301.Google Scholar
South Dakota v. Dole. 1987. 483 U.S. 203.Google Scholar
United States v. Carotene Products Co. 1938. 304 U.S. 144.Google Scholar
Wickard v. Filbum. 1942. 417 U.S. 111.Google Scholar