Does the Law Matter? An Examination of How a State’s Definition of Law Impacts Judicial Decision Making
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2007.28.0.181-204Abstract
Only a few studies in political science in the past half decade have taken the decline in common law seriously. This paper assesses whether or not those of us in the discipline should take it seriously. This project employs an original index for the common law in order to assess to what degree a state’s definition of the law impacts judicial decision making. The results show that states with a greater commitment to the common law show greater regard for due process rights. This study concludes that a state’s definition of the law matters.References
Bailyn, Bernard, ed. 1965. Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750-1776. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Beavers, Staci L., and Jeffrey S. Walz. 1998. Modeling Judicial Federalism: Predictors of State Court Protections of Defendant's Rights under State Constitutions, 1969-1989. Publis 28:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3331049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a029968
Blackstone, William. 1979. Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vol. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brace, Paul, and Melinda Gann Hall. 2001. 'Haves' versus 'Have Nots' in State Supreme Courts: Allocating Docket Space and Wins in Power Asymmetric Cases. Law & Society Review 35:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3185407
Brace, Paul, and Melinda Gann Hall. 1995. Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the States. Political Research Quarterly 48:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800101 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449117
Brace, Paul, and Melinda Gann Hall. 1993. Integrated Models of Judicial Dissent. Journal of Politics 55:4.
Brace, Paul, Laura Langer, and Melinda Gann Hall. 2000. Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Judges. Journal of Politics 62:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00018
Brockelbank, J.W. 1954. The Role of Due Process in American Constitutional Law. Cornell Law Quarterly 39:2.
Carp, Robert A., and Ronald Stidham. 1990. Judicial Process in America. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Clayton, Cornell W., and Gillman, Howard, eds. 1999. Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Coke, Edward. 1974. The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England: Containing the Exposition of Many Ancient and Other Statutes. Omni Publications.
Coke, Edward. 1979. An Abridgement of the Lord Coke's Commentary on Littleton. Edited by Sir Humphrey Davenport. New York: Garland Publishing.
Corwin, Edward S. 1928. 'The Higher Law' Background of American Constitutional Law. Harvard Law Review 42:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1329859
Dr. Bonham's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 646 (K.B. 1610).
Edwards, Harry T. 2003. The Effects of Collegiality on Judicial Decision Making. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151:5. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3313001
Epstein, Lee, and Gary King. 2002. The Rules of Inference. University of Chicago Law Review 69:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1600349
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Gough, J.W. 1971. Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Hogue, Arthur R. 1986. Origins of the Common Law [Reprint]. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
Horwitz, Morton J. 1977. The Transformation of American Law: 1780-1860. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Huber, Gregory A., and Sanford C. Gordon. 2004. Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind When it Runs for Office. American Political Science Review 48:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1519881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00068.x
Hudson, John. 1996. The Formation of the English Common Law: Law and Society in England from the Norman Conquest to Magna Carta. Edinburgh Gate, UK: Addision-Wesley Longman Ltd.
Kent, James. 1836. Commentaries on American Law, 3rd ed. New York: E.B. Clayton, James van Norden.
Knight, Jack, and Lee Epstein. 1996. On the Struggle for Judicial Supremacy. Law & Society Review 30:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3054035
Langer, Laura. 2002. Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert W. Vishny.1998. Law and Finance. Journal of Political Economy 106:6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/250042
Lear, Elizabeth T. 1993. Is Conviction Irrelevant? UCLA Law Review 40:1.
Liu, James H., and Gerald H. Shure. 1993. Due Process Orientation Does Not Always Mean Political Liberalism. Law and Human Behavior 17:3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01044513
Nelson, William E. 1994. Americanization of the Common Law: The Impact of Legal Change on Massachusetts Society, 1760-1830. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Neubauer, David W. 2005. America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson and Wadsworth.
Perry, H.W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rowland, C.K., and Robert A. Carp. 1996. Politics and Judgment in Federal District Courts. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover. 1989. Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review 83:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962405
Segal, Jeffery A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615696
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1996. The Influence of Stare Decisis on Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices. American Journal of Political Science 40:4. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111738
Siegan, Bernard. 2001. Property Rights: From Magna Cart to the Fourteenth Amendment. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Stith, Kate and Jose A. Cabranes. 1998. Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Stoner, James R. 2003. Common-Law Liberty: Rethinking American Constitutionalism. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Stoner, James R. 1992 Common Law and Liberal Theory: Coke, Hobbes, and the Origins of American Constitutionalism. Lawrence: The University Press of Kansas.
Tansill, Charles Callan, ed. 1972. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774. Reprinted in Making of the American Republic: The Great Documents 1774-1789. Arlington, VA: Arlington House.
Whittington, Keith E. 2001. Taking What They Give Us: Explaining the Court's Federalism Offensive. Duke Law Journal 51:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1373241
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
