FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3123455278> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3123455278 startingPage "585" @default.
• W3123455278 abstract "At Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, then-Judge Gorsuch repeatedly insisted that judging involves no more than examining the legal materials — like statutes and precedents — and applying them to the facts of the case. There is, he emphasized, no room for a Justice’s “personal views,” and he refused even to state his agreement (or disagreement) with such iconic cases as Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. Instead, then-Judge Gorsuch reiterated only that they were precedents of the Court and thus entitled to respect. Frustrating as his answers may have been to some Senators, however, they differed from answers given by other recent nominees largely in degree and tone, not in kind. Indeed, all four most recent nominees before Gorsuch — but especially Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor — made similar claims, of which Roberts’s invocation of the neutral umpire is only the most famous.Such forceful claims of neutrality and their attendant implication that there are necessarily right and wrong answers to difficult legal questions — answers that can be determined through deductive reasoning or by examining legal texts through the right lens — are not new, but their role and prominence in Supreme Court confirmation hearings have changed over the years. Using both qualitative and quantitative analysis, including empirical research on confirmation hearings already reported, this Article charts the history of such discussions in Supreme Court confirmation hearings from Justice Harlan’s hearing in 1955 through Justice Gorsuch’s hearing in 2017 — the period of time during which all nominees have been expected to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. More specifically, the Article focuses on the extent to which nominees and Senators have claimed that there are objectively correct answers to the hard questions faced by the Supreme Court or, alternatively, have acknowledged and discussed the reality that textual and historical sources often do not provide clear answers and that Supreme Court Justices must balance competing interests, precedents, and constitutional principles and apply constitutional provisions and doctrines in new and complex factual circumstances. Specifically, the Article establishes that during the Warren court years, claims of objectivity were often made by conservative Senators, with relatively little discussion of alternative views of judging by either Senators or nominees. By the late 1980s and 1990s, however, Senators and nominees were having surprisingly candid conversations about the role of the Supreme Court, conversations that acknowledged the importance of judgment and judicial philosophy in resolving many difficult constitutional questions. Since 2000, however, nominees have largely eschewed such discussions and, along with Republican Senators, have embraced claims of objectivity and neutrality.As the Article demonstrates, however, such claims about the Court and its work are highly inaccurate, and they may have negative effects on the legitimacy of the Court as an institution. After all, when the Court announces its decisions in difficult cases, members of the public can plainly see that different Justices both approach those cases differently and often disagree about the result in predictable ways. News media regularly refer to the “liberal” and “conservative” Justices. So there is a significant disconnect between the claims made during confirmation hearings and the actions the Justices take — and research suggests that such a disconnect can undermine public confidence in the institution. The Article closes by proposing that Senators use their questions during confirmation hearings to combat the myth that judging, especially on the Supreme Court, is necessarily about reaching objectively correct, logically deducible conclusions." @default.
• W3123455278 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3123455278 creator A5027641315 @default.
• W3123455278 date "2017-01-01" @default.
• W3123455278 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3123455278 title "The Language of Neutrality in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings" @default.
• W3123455278 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W3123455278 type Work @default.
• W3123455278 sameAs 3123455278 @default.
• W3123455278 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3123455278 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3123455278 hasAuthorship W3123455278A5027641315 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConcept C2779581858 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConceptScore W3123455278C139621336 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConceptScore W3123455278C144024400 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConceptScore W3123455278C17319257 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConceptScore W3123455278C17744445 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConceptScore W3123455278C199539241 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConceptScore W3123455278C2778272461 @default.
• W3123455278 hasConceptScore W3123455278C2779581858 @default.
• W3123455278 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3123455278 hasLocation W31234552781 @default.
• W3123455278 hasOpenAccess W3123455278 @default.
• W3123455278 hasPrimaryLocation W31234552781 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W1589040815 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W2321592586 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W244842935 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W2552719742 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W2762357645 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W2793424428 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W28231646 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W311632158 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W3121502620 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W3121940994 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W3122298567 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W3122852427 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W3123253526 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W3123257651 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W3123481414 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W3125744724 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W3158001286 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W338120031 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W350072501 @default.
• W3123455278 hasRelatedWork W636464548 @default.
• W3123455278 hasVolume "122" @default.
• W3123455278 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3123455278 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3123455278 magId "3123455278" @default.
• W3123455278 workType "article" @default.