● The paper○ Does the law constrain the majority’s decision?■ Constrained court view = yes● Text○ Governing law specific + no material disagreement on meaning of the law● Votes ○ Unanimous or at least bi-partisan/non-ideological coalitions■ Dynamic court view = noText○ Governing law vague and/or material disagreement on the meaning of the lawVotes○ Split decisions and significant partisan/ideological coalitions ● The standard textbook example: school desegregation○ Q1: why not congress after WWII? (or what is the political logic of judicial action?)● Q1: Wilson and Dilulio: a framework of legislative/political potions○ Wilson and dilulio provide a framework for answering the questions of why not congress■ The suggest a 4 step analysis:Identify type of proposalAnalyze perceived cost/benefitsIdentify “sales” strategyAssess whether group has the resources to implement strategy ● Wilson and Dilulio: a closer look○ Perceived benefits of the proposal diffuse■ YesDiffuse costs/benefits○ Majoritarian politicians■ NoDiffuse costs/concentrated benefits ○ Client politics ■ YesConcentrated costs/diffuse benefits○ Entrepreneurial politics ■ No Concentrated costs/concentrated costs/benefits○ Interest group politics● Q2: why use federal courts (to set agenda?)○ State judges are elected/federal judges are appointed for life○ Good facts under separate but equal○ Sympathetic national elites? (The cold war argument)○ Sympathetic--but not filibuster-proof--liberal majority in congress● Q3: Bron and desegregation○ Did brown v. board desegregate schools?■
View Full Document
Unlocking...