USC.u.supreme_court,_research_paper

USC.u.supreme_court, - Moghanian 1 David Hackett Souter Planned Parenthood v Casey Washington v Glucksberg The Attitudinal Model Justice Souter

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Moghanian 1 David Hackett Souter, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Washington v. Glucksberg, Justice Souter David Hackett Souter a current associate justice of the United States Supreme Court was born in Melrose, Massachusetts, on September 17, 1939. Justice Souter attended and graduated from Harvard College. Souter’s major was philosophy and for his senior thesis, according to Time Magazine, “‘he wrote about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ statement: ‘[I] believe that a judge should not be influenced by either politics or ideology’” (Biography Resource Center online). When Souter obtained his degree, his career only went upward from working as attorney general to gaining a seat as a justice on the Supreme Court of New Hampshire (U.S.S.C official site). The National Review, looking at Souter’s career positions, found Souter to be a man who would, “‘defend the original meaning of the Constitution’ rather than voting strictly along party lines’” (Biography Resource Center online). In 1990, President George Bush, a Republican, nominated Souter for a justice of the United States Supreme Court. Soon after Souter was confirmed and was one of the nine justices on the United States Supreme Court. Not to much “was known [about Souter’s] positions on issues of the forefront of the news, such as abortion…” (Biography Resource Center online) From Souter’s timeline, one can mistaken Souter’s ideological beliefs as a conservative, however, Souter was a liberal. It was ironic to see a very republican office nominating a liberal to a become a member of the United States Supreme Court. “…It was hoped by conservatives that [Souter’s] literal interpretations of the Constitution would work in their favor. However,
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Moghanian 2 Souter’s interpretations of the Constitution were more liberal than the Republican Party had hoped” (Biography Resource Center online). A Conservative, Republican office with a nomination of a United States Supreme Court justice, who’s view seemed to be of a conservative form, but rather, were quite liberal; we see this in many of the cases that reach the United States Supreme Court. The Attitudinal Model In order to understand Justice Souter’s ideological predispositions and his decision- making patterns, one must understand the concept of the attitudinal model. The attitudinal model deals with what is behind Supreme Court decision-making, what judges are basing their decisions on. In an article named Voting Fluidity and the Attitudinal Model of Supreme Court Decision Making, two scholars, Timothy Hagle and Harold Spaeth define the attitudinal model as the following: “…justices’ votes depend on their attitudes or personal policy preferences…” (119) Judges are basing their decisions on maximizing their own interests and political attitudes. Many of the studies regarding supreme court decision making can be divided up into two models: the legal model and the attitudinal model. “The legal
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/06/2008 for the course POSC 130g taught by Professor Below during the Fall '06 term at USC.

Page1 / 10

USC.u.supreme_court, - Moghanian 1 David Hackett Souter Planned Parenthood v Casey Washington v Glucksberg The Attitudinal Model Justice Souter

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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