Free speech is essential to democracy and political participation. But scholars hold competing expectations about whether courts will protect free speech in similar ways for extremism. Drawing on free speech cases from high courts in Australia, Canada, India, and South Africa, as well as from the European Court of Human Rights, I show that judges are substantially less likely to support free speech in cases involving extremist claimants or extreme speech. Moreover, I demonstrate how judges tailor arguments in response to concerns about extremism. This evidence has implications for our understanding of judicial behavior and the role that courts play in preserving democracy.
{"title":"Giving Succor to Extremism?","authors":"Stephan Stohler","doi":"10.1086/716786","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716786","url":null,"abstract":"Free speech is essential to democracy and political participation. But scholars hold competing expectations about whether courts will protect free speech in similar ways for extremism. Drawing on free speech cases from high courts in Australia, Canada, India, and South Africa, as well as from the European Court of Human Rights, I show that judges are substantially less likely to support free speech in cases involving extremist claimants or extreme speech. Moreover, I demonstrate how judges tailor arguments in response to concerns about extremism. This evidence has implications for our understanding of judicial behavior and the role that courts play in preserving democracy.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":"10 1","pages":"287 - 318"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49034281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To compare court decisions in a systematic way, it is typically necessary to first read these decisions and then apply legal methods to them. Measurement models that support analysts in this manual labor usually rely on judges ’ voting records. Since these data are often not available, weinstead propose a latent-variable model that uses the widely available references in court decisions to measure the decisions ’ latent position in their common case-space. We showcase our model in the context of forum shopping and forum selling of Germany ’ s lower courts.
{"title":"Scaling Court Decisions with Citation Networks","authors":"C. Arnold, B. Engst, T. Gschwend","doi":"10.1086/717420","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/717420","url":null,"abstract":"To compare court decisions in a systematic way, it is typically necessary to first read these decisions and then apply legal methods to them. Measurement models that support analysts in this manual labor usually rely on judges ’ voting records. Since these data are often not available, weinstead propose a latent-variable model that uses the widely available references in court decisions to measure the decisions ’ latent position in their common case-space. We showcase our model in the context of forum shopping and forum selling of Germany ’ s lower courts.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43001323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Latent Judicial Intervention: The Case of Self-Claiming Palestinian Informers","authors":"Menachem Hofnung, Ofir Hadad","doi":"10.1086/717419","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/717419","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47030860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Most theories of judicial politics are built around explaining the puzzle of judicial independence. This article instead theorizes explicitly about the conditions under which politicians are prone to manipulate their courts. By positing that courts can partly endogenously shape leaders’ fate at the hands of legislative opponents, we argue that greater political insecurity leads presidents to gut judicial independence, not shore it up. Drawing on a novel data set of judicial crises across 18 Latin American countries following the third wave of democratization, we show that variation in judicial crises is systematically correlated with the president’s risk of nonelectoral instability as captured by the history of past presidential crises, presidential power, and antigovernmental protests. To identify whether the effects of protest on judicial manipulation are causal, we use an instrumental variable approach based on international commodity prices weighted for each country.
{"title":"Insecure Institutions","authors":"Gretchen Helmke, YeonKyung Jeong, Jae-Eun C Kim","doi":"10.1086/716430","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716430","url":null,"abstract":"Most theories of judicial politics are built around explaining the puzzle of judicial independence. This article instead theorizes explicitly about the conditions under which politicians are prone to manipulate their courts. By positing that courts can partly endogenously shape leaders’ fate at the hands of legislative opponents, we argue that greater political insecurity leads presidents to gut judicial independence, not shore it up. Drawing on a novel data set of judicial crises across 18 Latin American countries following the third wave of democratization, we show that variation in judicial crises is systematically correlated with the president’s risk of nonelectoral instability as captured by the history of past presidential crises, presidential power, and antigovernmental protests. To identify whether the effects of protest on judicial manipulation are causal, we use an instrumental variable approach based on international commodity prices weighted for each country.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":"10 1","pages":"265 - 285"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48865780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research of judges and courts traditionally centers on judgments, treating each judgment as a unit of observation. However, judgments often address multiple distinct and more or less unrelated issues. Studying judicial behavior on a judgment level therefore loses potentially important details and risks drawing false conclusions from the data. We present a method to assist researchers with splitting judgments by issues using a supervised machine learning classifier. Applying our approach to splitting judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Union into issues, we show that this approach is practically feasible and provides benefits for text-based analysis of judicial behavior
{"title":"From One To Many: Identifying Issues in CJEU Jurisprudence","authors":"P. Schroeder, J. Lindholm","doi":"10.1086/717421","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/717421","url":null,"abstract":"Research of judges and courts traditionally centers on judgments, treating each judgment as a unit of observation. However, judgments often address multiple distinct and more or less unrelated issues. Studying judicial behavior on a judgment level therefore loses potentially important details and risks drawing false conclusions from the data. We present a method to assist researchers with splitting judgments by issues using a supervised machine learning classifier. Applying our approach to splitting judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Union into issues, we show that this approach is practically feasible and provides benefits for text-based analysis of judicial behavior","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45796997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Lower Courts in Interbranch Conflict","authors":"Joshua A Strayhorn","doi":"10.1086/716784","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716784","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44766660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Does a domestic constitutional court within a state encourage greater acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? This question is particularly relevant in Islamic law states (ILS). One might expect that ILS, which embrace the rule of law domestically, might do so internationally. However, this expectation paints an overly simplistic picture of the constitutional court’s role and its relationship with domestic and international politics. Employing original data on constitutional references to constitutional courts (1946–2012), we show that in the context of ILS, acceptance of the ICJ’s jurisdiction is conditional on an independent constitutional court.
{"title":"Domestic Constitutional Oversight and International Courts","authors":"E. J. Powell, Ilana Rothkopf","doi":"10.1086/716787","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716787","url":null,"abstract":"Does a domestic constitutional court within a state encourage greater acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? This question is particularly relevant in Islamic law states (ILS). One might expect that ILS, which embrace the rule of law domestically, might do so internationally. However, this expectation paints an overly simplistic picture of the constitutional court’s role and its relationship with domestic and international politics. Employing original data on constitutional references to constitutional courts (1946–2012), we show that in the context of ILS, acceptance of the ICJ’s jurisdiction is conditional on an independent constitutional court.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":"10 1","pages":"319 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47619705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Aesthetic Preferences and Policy Preferences as Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Writing Style","authors":"J. Budziak, D. Lempert","doi":"10.1086/717423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/717423","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41255590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-28DOI: 10.33774/apsa-2021-d5fsz
Anna Gunderson, Kirsten Widner, M. Macdonald
Social media provides an inexpensive way for interest groups to inform and mobilize large audiences, but it is puzzling why organizations would spend time posting about activities like litigation that do not depend on public opinion or mobilization. We argue there are two reasons interest groups post about judicial advocacy on social media. First, organizations provide information about the courts on social media to build credibility and recognition as a trusted source of information. We hypothesize that membership groups will be less likely to use social media in this way than non-membership public interest organizations. Second, organizations use social media to claim credit for activity in the courts in order to increase their public and financial support. We expect that this strategy will be used most frequently by legal organizations. Using an original dataset of millions of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups, we find support for these expectations.
{"title":"Pursuing Change or Pursuing Credit? Litigation and Credit Claiming on Social Media","authors":"Anna Gunderson, Kirsten Widner, M. Macdonald","doi":"10.33774/apsa-2021-d5fsz","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2021-d5fsz","url":null,"abstract":"Social media provides an inexpensive way for interest groups to inform and mobilize large audiences, but it is puzzling why organizations would spend time posting about activities like litigation that do not depend on public opinion or mobilization. We argue there are two reasons interest groups post about judicial advocacy on social media. First, organizations provide information about the courts on social media to build credibility and recognition as a trusted source of information. We hypothesize that membership groups will be less likely to use social media in this way than non-membership public interest organizations. Second, organizations use social media to claim credit for activity in the courts in order to increase their public and financial support. We expect that this strategy will be used most frequently by legal organizations. Using an original dataset of millions of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups, we find support for these expectations.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42106645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We examine whether state judicial selection methods influence people’s evaluations of US Supreme Court nominees. We find that people from appointing states use nominee characteristics in their evaluations differently than people in electing states. Those from appointing states appear to be more concerned with traditional legal factors, while people from electing states appear to be slightly less concerned with them. Although the importance varies from characteristic to characteristic, state judicial selection system has a broad role in shaping how people evaluate judicial nominees. These findings counsel further research on judicial institutions and the public’s expectations of judges.
{"title":"How State Judicial Selection Methods May Influence Views of US Supreme Court Nominees","authors":"Christopher N. Krewson, Ryan J. Owens","doi":"10.1086/715547","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715547","url":null,"abstract":"We examine whether state judicial selection methods influence people’s evaluations of US Supreme Court nominees. We find that people from appointing states use nominee characteristics in their evaluations differently than people in electing states. Those from appointing states appear to be more concerned with traditional legal factors, while people from electing states appear to be slightly less concerned with them. Although the importance varies from characteristic to characteristic, state judicial selection system has a broad role in shaping how people evaluate judicial nominees. These findings counsel further research on judicial institutions and the public’s expectations of judges.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":"10 1","pages":"189 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/715547","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48922192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：