Evolution of the Judicial Opinion: Institutional and Individual Styles

Portada
NYU Press, 2007 M10 1 - 301 páginas

In this sweeping study of the judicial opinion, William D. Popkin examines how judges' opinions have been presented from the early American Republic to the present. Throughout history, he maintains, judges have presented their opinions within political contexts that involve projecting judicial authority to the external public, yet within a professional legal culture that requires opinions to develop judicial law through particular institutional and individual judicial styles.
Tracing the history of judicial opinion from its roots in English common law, Popkin documents a general shift from unofficially reported oral opinions, to semi-official reports, to the U.S. Supreme Court's adoption in the early nineteenth century of generally unanimous opinions. While this institutional base was firmly established by the twentieth century, Popkin suggests that the modern U.S. judicial opinion has reverted—in some respects—to one in which each judge expresses an individual point of view. Ultimately, he concludes that a shift from an authoritative to a more personal and exploratory individual style of writing opinions is consistent with a more democratic judicial institution.

Dentro del libro

Contenido

1 The English Tradition and Its Evolution
6
Creation of a Judicial Institution
43
US Supreme Court
60
States
86
Institutional Practice
108
Individual Style
142
Postscript
179
Appendices
183
Notes
245
Index
293
About the Author
301
Derechos de autor

Otras ediciones - Ver todas

Términos y frases comunes

Pasajes populares

Página 146 - If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law?
Página 57 - It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
Página 122 - It is of high importance that judges constituting a court of last resort should use effort and self-restraint to promote solidarity of conclusion and the consequent influence of judicial decision. A judge should not yield to pride of opinion or value more highly his individual reputation than that of the court to which he should be loyal. Except in case of conscientious difference of opinion on fundamental principle, dissenting opinions should be discouraged in courts of last resort.
Página 146 - The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
Página 145 - The government proceeds directly from the people ; is " ordained and established " in the name of the people, and is declared to be ordained, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.
Página 258 - The powers delegated by this constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial, nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.
Página 12 - The fact is Lord Coke had no authority for what he states, but I am afraid we should get rid of a good deal of what is considered law in Westminster Hall if what Lord Coke says without authority is not law. He was one of the most eminent lawyers that ever presided as a judge in any court of justice, and what is said by such a person is good evidence of what the law is, particularly when it is in conformity with justice and common sense.
Página 145 - This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by Congress and by the State legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it, in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States; and where else should they have assembled?
Página 50 - ... that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other as the nature of a free government will admit ; or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of unity and amity.

Acerca del autor (2007)

William D. Popkin is Walter W. Foskett Professor Emeritus of Law at Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington. He is the author of Statutes in Court: The History and Theory of Statutory Interpretation.

Información bibliográfica