{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

DDI09.SS.AbortionNeg.Wave4

DDI09.SS.AbortionNeg.Wave4 - Dartmouth 2K9 Rozy 1 Abortion...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
8f26ef1e5376fdfb2b8780bc6a8871f03d09c3bd.doc Dartmouth 2K9 Rozy 1 Abortion Addendum Abortion Addendum .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Equal Protection Frontline [1/2] .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Equal Protection Frontline [2/2] .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Congress CP – Positive Rights Abortion ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Congress CP - Solvency ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Congress CP – 14th Amendment ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Congress CP – Equal Protection/Morgan Doctrine ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Congress CP – Morgan Doctrine/14th Amendment .................................................................................................................................... 9 Congress CP – Morgan Power ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Congress CP – AT: Perm ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Last printed 1
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
8f26ef1e5376fdfb2b8780bc6a8871f03d09c3bd.doc Dartmouth 2K9 Rozy 2 Equal Protection Frontline [1/2] 1. No precedent spillover – judges will remain true to their political ideology. Songer 99 University of South Carolina [Donald R., The American Political Science Review Vol. 93, No. 4, p983-984] The primary focus of Majority Rule is an empirical test ofwhether the votes of Supreme Court justices are determinedby the Court's own precedent or reflect their ideologicalpreferences. "Does precedent actually cause justices to reachdecisions that they otherwise would not have made" (p. 7)?The authors conceptualize this question as involving a dichotomous choice. They assume that a vote is determined solelyby either precedent or judicial ideology. They do not attemptto test whether, and do not even allow the possibility that, thevotes and policies adopted by the justices can be jointlyinfluenced by both. Analysis centers on the behavior of justices in caseslabelled the "progeny" of earlier cases that set precedent .The assumption is that, if the Legal Model is accurate, votesin these progeny cases should be controlled by the parentcase . Only the progeny votes of justices who dissented in theprecedent case are examined, as one can make no firmconclusions about the motivations of the justices who werepart of the majority in the precedent. In the case of those whodissented in the precedent, it may objectively be determinedthat the precedent was contrary to their ideological prefer-ences. Thus, their votes in the progeny can be classified"objectively" as supporting either precedent or their prefer-ences. Spaeth and Segal examine all the votes of the dissenters inall the orally argued progeny of the universe of a list of the"landmark" decisions of the Court and a sample of thenonunanimous "ordinary" decisions of the Court. In all, 2,425 votes cast by 77 justices in the 1,206 progeny of 341precedential cases are examined. The conclusions of theauthors are unambiguous and can be easily summarized:"The justices are rarely influenced by stare decisis" (p. 288). In only 11.9% of the votes did Spaeth and Segal find any evidence that the justices were influenced by precedent .Moreover, the domination of precedent by the ideologicalpreferences of the justices was found in every era of theCourt's history and characterized voting in the progeny ofboth the landmark and the ordinary cases.
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.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}