Equivalent Versus Minimum Winning Opinion Coalition Size
A Test of Two Hypotheses
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6232104 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael W Giles (0000-0002-6567-1951, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1977 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 405 |
| Publication date | 1977-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0092-5853 • E-ISSN: 1540-5907 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2110501 |
| OpenAlex | W2330922291 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 1 |
The literature on the U.S. Supreme Court suggests several factors that tend to minimize concurring opinions. First, disagreement by the justices in public is frowned upon by the legal community.' This disapproval appears to be the case in particular for concurrences. According to one eminent student of the Court, many legal scholars view concurring opinions as frequently nothing more than ego-manifestations and/or 'quibbling', which would more profitably be confined to footnotes. (Abraham, 1968, p. 207 quoted by Rohde, 1972, p. 217). Second, the Supreme Court is a small group whose efficiency depends upon maintaining group identity and a level of social harmony. Not only is the harmony and the efficiency of the group deleteriously affected by excessive concurrences, but also the ability of a judge to influence his colleagues may be diminished (Murphy, 1964, passim). Third, the separate opinion is a limited resource. If a justice writes a concurring opinion on every case where he is not in total agreement with the majority, then the impact of his opinion where the policy differences are great, and therefore important to him, may be lost amidst the torrent of quibbling concurrences. The justices appear to be aware of the limited value of separate opinions. Justice Stone, for example, wrote to Karl Llewelyn, You know if I should write in every case where I do not agree with some views expressed in the opinions, you and
Concurring opinion · Court of equity · Economic Justice · Epistemology · Harmony (color · Nothing · Political science · Sociology · Supreme court · Test (biology · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Merger and Competition Analysis · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,06 |
| Citation span | 1977 - 1989 (13) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |