Scientific-Methodological Conference of USSR Supreme Court

The Scientific Consultative Council under the USSR Supreme Court has held a scientific-methodological conference. It was in preparation for a long time. As early as July 1965, the journal Sotsialisticheskaia zakonnost' informed its readers of the forthcoming conference and published an article by S. Radzhabov, "Improve the Administration of the Courts" [Sovershenstvovat' sudebnoe upravlenie], and another by S. Komissarov, "The Supervisory Powers of the USSR Supreme Court Need Improving" [Nadzornye polnomochiia Verkhovnogo Suda Soiuza SSR nuzhdaiutsia v sover-shenstvovanii]. In August of last year a report was published of a round-table conference conducted by the editors and devoted to the effectiveness of criminal punishment. Subsequently, the journals Sotsialisticheskaia zakonnost', Sovetskaia iustitsiia, and Radians'ke pravo have been publishing, in each of their issues, articles, surveys, and proposals on improving the functioning of the courts and increasing the effectiveness of criminal punishment.     

Credible Commitments and the Early American Supreme Court

Conventional wisdom holds that the role of the U.S. federal judiciary was underspecified and undefined until the era of Chief Justice John Marshall. In contrast, I argue that prior to the Marshall era, the Supreme Court had the specific institutional role of providing an administrative remedy to aggrieved nations to deprive potentially hostile nations of any excuse for belligerence. Specifically, concern among the Framers about this nascent country's absence of dispute resolution mechanisms in the areas of trade and admiralty was critical in the institutional design of the judiciary. Original jurisdiction was designed primarily to remedy trade disputes. The independent judiciary made trade commitments more credible and self-help by the aggrieved less likely. By providing this administrative remedy and lowering the uncertainty associated with trading with revolutionaries, the Framers claimed a seat for the new country at the table of nations. Moreover, enhanced commercial credibility that the administrative avenue for redress provided was instrumental in the early economic development of the United States.     

Citations to Authority in Supreme Court Opinions

This article analyzes citations used by the U.S. Supreme Court in its majority opinions. The research explores variations in citations and evaluates various explanations for these variations, including the potential impact of individual judicial style, legal factors, and group interaction in the formation of opinions. The article suggests that systematic analysis of citations holds potential for contributing to our understanding of the judicial process.     

Campaign contributions in Texas Supreme Court races

One of the most disturbing features of an elective judiciary is judicial campaign finance. This paper explores the financing of the 1988 Texas Supreme Court races, probably the most expensive partisan judicial election campaign in history. It examines the sources of the funding of those six seats on the court in terms of competition among interest groups for control of the court. It also examines proposed reforms in the system of campaign finance and points out that those reforms are not neutral tools of good government, but that instead they have massive political implications for the interests vying to influence the direction of tort law in the state.     

The Institutionalization of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

This article uses an original database of confirmation hearing dialogue to examine how the Senate Judiciary Committee's role in Supreme Court confirmations has changed over time, with particular attention paid to the 1939–2010 era. During this period, several notable developments took place, including a rise in the number of hearing comments, increased attention to nominees’ views of judicial decisions, an expansion of the scope of issues addressed, and the equalization of questioning between majority and minority party senators. We demonstrate that these changes were shaped by both endogenous and exogenous factors to promote the legitimization of the Judiciary Committee's role in the confirmation process and to foster the instrumental goals of senators. This research contributes to our understanding of the development of political institutions, interbranch interactions, and how institutional change affects the behavior of legal and political actors.     

Relations Between the Ussr Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts of the Union Republics

As we know, the Supreme Court of the USSR and the supreme courts of the union republics did not come into being simultaneously. The supreme courts of the union republics came first, followed by the USSR Supreme Court.     

Social science in Supreme Court criminal cases and briefs

This article describes citations of social science research evidence in 200 criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court and in the briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae in these cases. It also examines the uses of social science authorities in samples of Supreme Court exclusionary rule and jury decisionmaking cases, and accompanying briefs. The correspondence between the social science references cited in the decisions and the briefs is used as one measure of the brief-writers' contributions to the Court's use of social science materials, and related contributions of the brief-writers are explored, as well. The justices appeared to locate the majority of social science references cited in their opinions without assistance from the briefs, and thus also presumably attempted to evaluate the research evidence on their own. Individuals and organizations with scientific expertise rarely filed amicus briefs in these cases, which may help explain why the Court so frequently was without assistance in locating or examining research evidence. It is suggested that the appellate judiciary's informed use of social science materials would be promoted if more social scientists, and their professional organizations, participated as amici curiae in cases presenting social fact issues within their competence.