● Defining the “law”○ What is the “law” ■ A set of rules enacted by govt backed by the force of the state (relevant toclass)■ A distinct professional language■ A political resource ■ A set of “socially constructed” understandings ● Broader Analytic Lesson #1○ Theoretical definitions are necessary, BUT…○ Often contested and partial○ and can have unintended consequences on our research○ So, we need to be transparent and self-reflective of our theoretical assumptions ● Orderly Dispute Resolution (ODR) and the Logic of the Triad (Shapiro)○ Logic of the Triad■ ODR implies courts = referees■ Logic of the triad - 2-against-1 problem■ Law and rule of law helps preserve the logic of the triadCase issue concernblankenship Campaign contributions to a presiding judge Financial bias (not uniquely a “triadic” concern, anti-bribery laws, but heightened with courts)Iowa gay marriage controversy Judicial elections political/electoral biasSotomayor confirmation/scalia dissent Judicial policymaking Ideological partisan bias● Broader Lesson #2: ○ Logic of the triad■ Scalia dissent■ Supreme court confirmation process■ Iowa court rulings on gay marriage■ Campaign contributions in judicial elections○ Lesson #2■ Theory is critical for seeing patterns ● Theory vs. Ideology ○ Theory■ Scaffolding that moves and can be changed○ Ideology■ Unchanging● Big Picture so far: content ○ Talking only about the promise of law and courts○ Underlying subject matter is tough and contested (even Artistile did not do a goodjob of defining law○ Courts represent a distinct institutional setting with their own “social logic”○ ODR is inherently difficult function (which we arguably take for granted)● What’s the alternative? The Godfather and Self-help○ Some advantages of self-help■ Efficient■ tailored/particularized■ Can engender mutual accommodation○ Some costs of self-help■ No procedural checks against mistakes or arbitrary actions■ Limited access■ Escalation○ Self help can be great but we need mechanisms for ODR● The need for orderly dispute resolution in the US○ In 2016 alone, over 274,500 US district court civil cases (not criminal) commenced○ That's more than one federal lawsuit every two minutes○ 24 hours a day○ 365 days a year○ And there are millions of civil suits filed in state courts every year○ US legal system has the capacity to resolved not only a large number of disputesbut also contested, high stakes ones ● Some examples of judicial resolution of high stakes political conflicts—cross national comparisons of political succession ○ The Watergate Tapes Case○ The 2000 Election○ Malaysia ○ Iran● US v. Nixon○ What happened?■ During president nixon’s first term he established the “plumbers” who were charged with containing leaks in the White House■ This group engaged in a number of illegal activities■ Although eventually disbanded, key members joined the Committee to Re-Elect the President (or CREEP) ■ CREEP engaged in a whole series of dirty political tricks and illegal activities, inducing trying to bug the NAtional Democratic Headquarters in Watergate■ They were caught and the question was how much did the President know and when■ During congressional hearing, WHite House Counsel John Dean testified that the President personally directed the cover-up from the Oval Office ■ The President denied it■ It comes to light that the President taped private conversations in the OvalOffice ■ Congress subpoenas the tapes■ The president refuses to hand them over on the grounds that the tapes are subject to “executive privileged”■ Congress sues○ What was the legal issue?■ Does the executive privilege cover materials being sought as part of a criminal investigation○ What did the Supreme Court hold?■ No, the tapes must be turned over○ What happened?■ Eventually, Nixon handed over the tapes and resigned from the most powerful office in the world ● The Malaysian Case○ What happened?■ Elections scandal○ What did the PM do?■ Got the king to replace the pesky high court judged○ What happened to him■ He stepped down● Gore v. Bush○ What happened?■ Contested election■ Republican appointees (in blatantly partisan decision on both sides) ensure the REpublican nominee gains the Oval Office (even though he lost the popular vote)○ What did Gore do?■ Conceded even though he strongly disagreed with the decision ● Iran Case○ What happened?■ Disputed presidential election■ Massive protests ■ Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Ruler, declared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner● US, the rule of law and dispute resolution: some comparisons● The power structure cracks downcase Core political issuePrecipitating eventcountry Result US v. Nixon Who rules? Political scandal USA Nixon hands over the tapes/President resigns Mohomad and “Then There Were Four”Who rules? Political scandal Malaysia Court rules against Pm and court is replacedGore and The 2000 ElectionWho rules? Contested election USA Gore disagrees but concedes the electionIran Who rules? Contested election Iran Riots and crackdowns by ruling regime ● THE PAPER○ Go to Oyez○ Read the summaries of decisions○ Choose which one you want to analyze○ Read the case carefully with the following in mind● Analysis○ Does the law constrain the court's decision?■ What was the prior law/precedent● Voting analysis ● Text analysis ○ Read the decision as a whole, majority and dissent■ NOTE: these cases involve multiple issues. Focus on the most important issue on each case■ My case to see whether or not companies are subject to donation