看不见的宪法:Marks v. United States案的一致意见和多数判决

IF 0.7 4区社会学 Q3 Social Sciences Justice System Journal Pub Date : 2022-07-18 DOI:10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943

Albert H. Rivero, Ellen M. Key, J. Segal

{"title":"看不见的宪法:Marks v. United States案的一致意见和多数判决","authors":"Albert H. Rivero, Ellen M. Key, J. Segal","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Supreme Court’s decision in Marks v. United States instructs lower courts interpreting plurality judgments to follow the opinion concurring on the narrowest grounds, or the opinion closest to the dissent, creating the possibility that the position of the Court may not be one favored by the median justice. While the Marks doctrine creates a problem theoretically, it is unclear how frequently these problems materialize. In this paper, we explore how frequently the Marks doctrine actually results in non-median outcomes. We conclude with thoughts about the importance of these cases and speculate about the future of the Marks doctrine.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"128 8 1","pages":"323 - 338"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Invisible Constitutions: Concurring Opinions and Plurality Judgments under Marks v. United States\",\"authors\":\"Albert H. Rivero, Ellen M. Key, J. Segal\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The Supreme Court’s decision in Marks v. United States instructs lower courts interpreting plurality judgments to follow the opinion concurring on the narrowest grounds, or the opinion closest to the dissent, creating the possibility that the position of the Court may not be one favored by the median justice. While the Marks doctrine creates a problem theoretically, it is unclear how frequently these problems materialize. In this paper, we explore how frequently the Marks doctrine actually results in non-median outcomes. We conclude with thoughts about the importance of these cases and speculate about the future of the Marks doctrine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"volume\":\"128 8 1\",\"pages\":\"323 - 338\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

最高法院在“Marks v. United States”一案中的裁决，指示下级法院在解释多数判决时遵循基于最狭隘理由的一致意见，或最接近反对意见的意见，这就造成了最高法院的立场可能不会受到中间大法官的支持。虽然马克思主义在理论上制造了一个问题，但不清楚这些问题出现的频率。在本文中，我们探讨了马克斯主义实际上导致非中位数结果的频率。最后，我们将思考这些案例的重要性，并推测马克思主义的未来。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Invisible Constitutions: Concurring Opinions and Plurality Judgments under Marks v. United States

Abstract The Supreme Court’s decision in Marks v. United States instructs lower courts interpreting plurality judgments to follow the opinion concurring on the narrowest grounds, or the opinion closest to the dissent, creating the possibility that the position of the Court may not be one favored by the median justice. While the Marks doctrine creates a problem theoretically, it is unclear how frequently these problems materialize. In this paper, we explore how frequently the Marks doctrine actually results in non-median outcomes. We conclude with thoughts about the importance of these cases and speculate about the future of the Marks doctrine.

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

Justice System Journal LAW-

CiteScore

0.90

自引率

14.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.