事实限制和分裂:调卷程序作为印第安部落正义的障碍

M. Fletcher
{"title":"事实限制和分裂:调卷程序作为印第安部落正义的障碍","authors":"M. Fletcher","doi":"10.1017/9781108770804.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court's certiorari process is a barrier to justice for parties like Indian tribes and individual Indians. Statistically, there is a near zero chance the Supreme Court will grant a certiorari petition filed by tribal interests. At the same time, the Court grants certiorari in more than a quarter of petitions filed by the traditional opponents to tribal sovereignty, states. Why?The Supreme Court has long maintained that the certiorari process is a neutral and objective means of eliminating patently frivolous petitions from consideration. This empirical study of preliminary memoranda drafted by the Supreme Court law clerk pool demonstrates the likelihood that the Court's certiorari process is neither objective nor neutral. Cert pool clerks overstate the relative merits and importance of petitions filed by states against tribal interests, while understating the merits and importance of tribal petitions.In this study of more than 162 certiorari petitions filed between 1986 and 1994, a majority of petitions brought by state and local governments received favorable treatment from the cert pool while recommending denial in all but a single tribal petition, often labeling them \"factbound\" and \"splitless.\" The impact of this weighted review of cert petitions is that a disproportionate number of state government petitions are granted while very few tribal petitions are granted.","PeriodicalId":413839,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Litigants & the Judiciary (Topic)","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factbound and Splitless: The Certiorari Process as a Barrier to Justice for Indian Tribes\",\"authors\":\"M. Fletcher\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/9781108770804.022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court's certiorari process is a barrier to justice for parties like Indian tribes and individual Indians. Statistically, there is a near zero chance the Supreme Court will grant a certiorari petition filed by tribal interests. At the same time, the Court grants certiorari in more than a quarter of petitions filed by the traditional opponents to tribal sovereignty, states. Why?The Supreme Court has long maintained that the certiorari process is a neutral and objective means of eliminating patently frivolous petitions from consideration. This empirical study of preliminary memoranda drafted by the Supreme Court law clerk pool demonstrates the likelihood that the Court's certiorari process is neither objective nor neutral. Cert pool clerks overstate the relative merits and importance of petitions filed by states against tribal interests, while understating the merits and importance of tribal petitions.In this study of more than 162 certiorari petitions filed between 1986 and 1994, a majority of petitions brought by state and local governments received favorable treatment from the cert pool while recommending denial in all but a single tribal petition, often labeling them \\\"factbound\\\" and \\\"splitless.\\\" The impact of this weighted review of cert petitions is that a disproportionate number of state government petitions are granted while very few tribal petitions are granted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":413839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Litigants & the Judiciary (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Litigants & the Judiciary (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108770804.022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Litigants & the Judiciary (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108770804.022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

最高法院的调卷程序对印第安部落和印第安人个人等团体来说是司法公正的障碍。据统计,最高法院批准部落利益团体提出的调卷申请的可能性几乎为零。与此同时,最高法院对传统上反对部落主权的州提出的四分之一以上的请愿书批准调卷令。为什么?最高法院长期以来一直认为,调卷程序是一种中立和客观的手段,可以消除显然是无聊的请愿。这项对最高法院法律书记员起草的初步备忘录的实证研究表明,法院的调卷程序可能既不客观也不中立。法庭职员夸大了各州针对部落利益提出的请愿的相对优点和重要性,同时低估了部落请愿的优点和重要性。在这项对1986年至1994年间提交的162份调卷申请的研究中,大多数由州和地方政府提出的申请都得到了证书池的优惠待遇,而除了一个部落的申请外,其他所有的申请都被拒绝,通常给它们贴上“事实限制”和“不可分割”的标签。这种对证书请愿的加权审查的影响是,不成比例的州政府请愿得到批准,而很少有部落请愿得到批准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Factbound and Splitless: The Certiorari Process as a Barrier to Justice for Indian Tribes
The Supreme Court's certiorari process is a barrier to justice for parties like Indian tribes and individual Indians. Statistically, there is a near zero chance the Supreme Court will grant a certiorari petition filed by tribal interests. At the same time, the Court grants certiorari in more than a quarter of petitions filed by the traditional opponents to tribal sovereignty, states. Why?The Supreme Court has long maintained that the certiorari process is a neutral and objective means of eliminating patently frivolous petitions from consideration. This empirical study of preliminary memoranda drafted by the Supreme Court law clerk pool demonstrates the likelihood that the Court's certiorari process is neither objective nor neutral. Cert pool clerks overstate the relative merits and importance of petitions filed by states against tribal interests, while understating the merits and importance of tribal petitions.In this study of more than 162 certiorari petitions filed between 1986 and 1994, a majority of petitions brought by state and local governments received favorable treatment from the cert pool while recommending denial in all but a single tribal petition, often labeling them "factbound" and "splitless." The impact of this weighted review of cert petitions is that a disproportionate number of state government petitions are granted while very few tribal petitions are granted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prime Example: Fitch v. Wine Express, Online Retailers, and the Need to Reevaluate Personal Jurisdiction in the Age of Amazon Unobservable Contract and Endogenous Timing in Legal Contests Law Society Policy For Access to Justice Failure Adversarial Bias and Court-Appointed Experts in Litigation From Law to Politics: Petitioners' Framing of Disputes in Chinese Courts
×
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