The literature shows how political parties use the Courts to advance their policy goals. In the post-Civil War period, the Republican Party dominated the courts. From the 1930s to the early 1970s, the nation experienced what experts have defined as the New Deal constitutional revolution. In recent years, the Republican Party has worked hard to consolidate the Republican control of the courts.
In May 2022, a draft opinion that would end Roe v Wade was made public. The leak indicates that Roe v Wade will be overruled. The leaked majority opinion stated, “it is time to return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” The underlying notion is that the court decision was both undemocratic and unconstitutional and it is time to return the decision to the people.
Using the assigned materials, please answer any of these three questions:
In overruling Roe, do you think the Supreme Court is acting as a majoritarian or a countermajoritarian institution? When the Court ruled the way it did in Roe, what was the court in your view (majoritarian, antimajoritarian, or countermajoriatrian, none of the above)?
What is the impact that public opinion may have on the court from now to issuance of the decision?
Did the court influence public opinion? If so, did they bring about social change when they recognized a right to terminate a pregnancy in Roe
Writing guidelines for the research paper
General Principles
1. Your paper should be simple and clear.
Your paper should not be long.
Your paper must reflect your reading of the articles discussed in class Your paper should be a persuasive document.
Use your paper to answer some questions and persuade the reader that your answer is the correct one. Use
5. Your paper should have a purpose.
You have to do two things when you are undertaking this project. First, you have to figure out the answer to the question you trying to answer. The second task, which you can only accomplish after you have accomplished the first, is to write your paper in such a way that you tell the reader what you are trying to achieve.
6. There is, unfortunately, no such thing as an “A for Effort” when it comes to written work.
The reader does not know how much time you spent producing whatever it is you have produced. All the reader has is what you put in his or her hands; that is all that matters to the reader because that is all that the reader can see. Your argument must stand on its own two feet. You must always read your own work from the reader’s perspective.
7. Everything you put on the page matters.
Every word matters. You need to revise your work as necessary so that it makes sense to that reader.
Specific Recommendations
1. Write your Introduction with a strong thesis first. Your paper will, basically, consist of five parts: a clear and concise question that can be answered, an introduction with a well-thought thesis, discussion of the premises and assumptions, evidence in support of your thesis, and a conclusion – in that order. It would be silly to begin writing your evidence section and conclusion first, before you know exactly what you are going to say.
2. Describe and explain your premises. Analyze the facts and point to the evidence in support of your argument. Highlight your findings and conclusions.
3. Use topic sentences. Each paragraph in your paper should make one point, and each paragraph should begin with a declarative sentence stating that point.
4. To the extent possible, eliminate the passive voice from your papers.
Reading/ sources
Lawrence Baum, “The Supreme Court in American Politics” Annual Review of Political Science 6 (2003) 161-180. [REQUIRED READING]
C. Neal Tate, ‘Past Present and Future with the Comparative Advantage’ Law and Courts 12.2 (Spring, 2002) 1-10 & 12.3 (Summer 2002) 1-13.
Lee Epstein, Jeffrey Segal and Harold Spaeth, “The Norm of Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court” American Journal of Political Science 45.2 (Apr., 2001) pp.362-77. [REQUIRED READING]
Benjamin Lauderdale and Tom Clark, “The Supreme Court’s Many Median Justices,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 106, No. 4 (November 2012), pp. 847- 866 [REQUIRED READING]
Jeffrey Segal, ‘Measuring Judicial Preferences.’ Law and Courts 17.2 (Spring 2007) 2-4. Michael Parrish, “The Great Depression, the New Deal and the American Legal Order,” Washington Law Review, 59 (September 1984), 723-50
Lawrence Baum, ‘Measuring Policy Change in the Rehnquist Court’ American Politics Research 23 (1995), 373-382
Harold Spaeth, ‘The Attitudinal Model’ In Lee Epstein, Contemplating Courts (Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1995). Chapter 13, pp. 296-314.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002)
Mark Richards and Herbert Kritzer, “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making” American Political Science Review 96.2 (2002) 305-320.
Lee Epstein and Jack Knight “Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look
Back, A Look Ahead” Political Research Quarterly 53 (2000) 625-661. http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/
Rogers M. Smith “Political Jurisprudence, the New Institutionalism, and the Future of Public Law” American Political Science Review 82 (1988) 89-108.
Saul Brenner, ‘A Short Reply by a Behavioral Scholar to Historical Institutionalism. Law and Courts 11.3 (Summer 2001) 17-18
P.S. Ruckman, “The Supreme Court, Critical Nominations, and the Senate Confirmation Process” The Journal of Politics 55.3 (Aug., 1993) 793-805.