The Internal Powers of the Chief Justice: The Nineteenth-Century Legacy

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences University of Pennsylvania Law Review Pub Date : 2006-06-01 DOI:10.2307/40041345
G. White
{"title":"The Internal Powers of the Chief Justice: The Nineteenth-Century Legacy","authors":"G. White","doi":"10.2307/40041345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The literature on the role of the Chief Justice of the United States has been dominated by two stereotypes. One, perpetuated by Chief Justices themselves and generally endorsed by other Justices, is that the Chief Justice occupies the role of “first among equals,” meaning that the powers of the Chief are largely formal, such as personifying the Court as an institution, as opposed to substantive, such as exercising disproportionate influence on colleagues. The phrase “among equals” in the stereotype is designed to emphasize the fact that nine Justices participate in the Court’s decisions, that each of their votes is given equal weight, and that the central job tasks of the Chief— hearing arguments, deciding cases, writing opinions—are no different from those of the other Justices. The other stereotype, which has emerged primarily from social science literature, is that the Chief Justice has special opportunities to exercise “leadership” on the Court. This stereotype is connected to a theory of collective decision making in small groups. Although the","PeriodicalId":48012,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","volume":"154 1","pages":"1463"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40041345","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40041345","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The literature on the role of the Chief Justice of the United States has been dominated by two stereotypes. One, perpetuated by Chief Justices themselves and generally endorsed by other Justices, is that the Chief Justice occupies the role of “first among equals,” meaning that the powers of the Chief are largely formal, such as personifying the Court as an institution, as opposed to substantive, such as exercising disproportionate influence on colleagues. The phrase “among equals” in the stereotype is designed to emphasize the fact that nine Justices participate in the Court’s decisions, that each of their votes is given equal weight, and that the central job tasks of the Chief— hearing arguments, deciding cases, writing opinions—are no different from those of the other Justices. The other stereotype, which has emerged primarily from social science literature, is that the Chief Justice has special opportunities to exercise “leadership” on the Court. This stereotype is connected to a theory of collective decision making in small groups. Although the
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
首席大法官的内部权力:19世纪的遗产
关于美国首席大法官角色的文献一直被两种刻板印象所主导。其一,由首席大法官自己延续并得到其他大法官普遍认可的是,首席大法官扮演着“平等中的第一”的角色,这意味着首席大法官的权力在很大程度上是形式化的,例如将法院拟人化为一个机构,而不是实质性的,例如对同事施加不成比例的影响。刻板印象中的“平等”一词旨在强调这样一个事实,即9名大法官参与最高法院的裁决,他们的每一票都具有同等的权重,首席大法官的核心工作任务——听取辩论、裁决案件、撰写意见书——与其他大法官没有什么不同。另一种主要来自社会科学文献的刻板印象是,首席大法官有特殊的机会在最高法院行使“领导力”。这种刻板印象与小团体集体决策理论有关。虽然
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Ultrastructural and Molecular Development of the Myotendinous Junction Triggered by Stretching Prior to Resistance Exercise. The Specification Power Cross-national analysis about the difference of histopathological management in Tis and T1 colorectal cancer between Japan and Korea. Law, Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality Data-Driven Originalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1