judicial politics 4-1-08

judicial politics 4-1-08 - STRATEGIC INTERACTION AMONG...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: STRATEGIC INTERACTION AMONG JUSTICES 01/04/2008 07:20:00 Pennsylvania v. Muniz Can decision be explained by legal or attitudinal model? Was muniz factually comparable to Miranda? Was muniz factually comparable to cases recognizing exceptions to Miranda? Were justices votes excepted? o OConnor threatened to jump from majority opinion Lessons from Muniz Decision making cannot be explained simply as a function of law or preferences CJ Rehnquist said that the deliberative process with is give and take muddies doctrinal purity: While of necessity much latitude is given to the opinion writer, there are inevitable compromises. Labeled by critics as due to confusion or lack of logical perception, these compromises may in fact be simply a very necessary effort Many times the final result is not what the author would originally have liked to...
View Full Document

Page1 / 4

judicial politics 4-1-08 - STRATEGIC INTERACTION AMONG...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online