The Idiom of Legalism in Bar Politics: Lawyers, McCarthyism, and the Civil Rights Era

This paper considers the political role of the organized bar from three perspectives: the historical question of the stance taken by bar associations during the major civil rights debates of the post-World War II period; the sociological question of the extent to which legal associations can act collectively on highly contentious political issues; and the legal question concerning the implications of legal formalism for the politics of the bar. Contrary to the belief that legalism is an inherently conservative means of justifying professional inaction on fundamental issues, the paper argues that in fact legalism may well be the most important basis of intra-professional consensus on those issues as well as the most powerful means by which the profession can influence state and national governments. Legalism can be understood as a common professional idiom which allows mobilization on divisive issues. It can be used in support of both liberal and conservative causes. In this sense, within certain limits, legalism is neutral–an expedient which enables the profession to act politically in circumstances which otherwise would effectively immobilize its collegial associations.     

The Institutionalization of the U.S. Supreme Court

In pursuing their goals, members of the U.S. Supreme Court areaffected by their institutional setting. How has that institutionalenvironment changed over time and what have been the politicalconsequences of those changes? Despite considerable analysisof the institutional dynamics of legislatures and executives,political scientists have been slow to bring time series techniquesto the study of the Supreme Court, and as a result much lessis known about its evolutionary path. Measuring a variety oforganizational characteristics, I construct an index of theinstitutionalization of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1996.This indicator suggests that the integration of the Court intothe system of federal policy making has better enabled the justicesto satisfy their objectives. To demonstrate this empirically,I test a series of error correction models of judicial influence,each of which confirms that the nature of the Supreme Court'scharacter has had considerable implications for the scope ofthe justices' legal and political impact. These results underscorethe need for judicial scholars to examine the Court's policymaking in longitudinal perspective.