Partiality and Disclosure in Supreme Court Opinions
نویسنده
چکیده
This Essay begins by identiying the various kinds of partiality the Justices of the Supreme Court can have in the cases they decide. Although there is widespread recognition of the influence these biases might have, for the most part the Justices continue to write opinions as if they (and other judges) were entirely disinterested. This practice is often thought to be justified as a source ofjudicial legitimacy, but there are a number of reasons to doubt that a pretense of impersonality is actually important for maintaining respect for the Court. Consequently, the possibility has to be considered that the Justices should routinely acknowledge their interests. This Essay, however, assesses some exceptional categories of cases where the Justices have addressed the issue of partiality and concludes that judicial self-interest prevents candid or realistic appraisals
منابع مشابه
The strict Ohio Supreme Court decision in Biddle: third party law firm held liable for inducing disclosure of medical information.
متن کامل
Criminal Law & HIV Non-Disclosure in Canada
The legal obligation to disclose was established in the 1990s, but the law became harsher in 2012 when the Supreme Court of Canada decided that people living with HIV must disclose their status before having sex that poses a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission” in R. v. Mabior and R. v. D.C.1 The Supreme Court characterized even very small risks of HIV transmission as “a realistic possib...
متن کاملHIV non-disclosure and the criminal law: An analysis of two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada
On October 5, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decisions in the cases of Mabior and D.C. The Court decided that people living with HIV have a legal duty, under the criminal law, to disclose their HIV-positive status to sexual partners before having sex that poses a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission. Not disclosing in such circumstances means a person could be convicted o...
متن کاملShaping Supreme Court Policy Through Appointments: The Impact of a New Justice
Different theories of decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court make radically different predictions about the impact of a new Justice on the Court. Using a new method for locating average majority opinion locations in a policy space, we test the predictions in a case study: the replacement of Justice Potter Stewart by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. We find a direct effect from the new Justice: O...
متن کاملTowards Tracking Political Sentiment through Microblog Data
People express and amplify political opinions in Microblogs such as Twitter, especially when major political decisions are made. Twitter provides a useful vehicle for capturing and tracking popular opinion on burning issues of the day. In this paper, we focus on tracking the changes in political sentiment related to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and its decisions, focusing on the key dimensio...
متن کامل