Show simple item record

"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking

dc.contributor.authorGuthrie, Chris
dc.contributor.authorGeorge, Tracey E.
dc.identifier.citation61 Vand. L. Rev. 1825 (2008)en_US
dc.description.abstractIn this Essay--the first in a series of essays designed to reimagine the Supreme Court--we argue that Congress should authorize the Court to adopt, in whole or part, panel decision making... With respect to the prospect of different Court outcomes, we demonstrate empirically in this Essay that the vast majority of cases decided during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries--including "Grutter", "Roe", and "Bush v. Gore" --would have come out the same way if the Court had decided them in panels rather than as a full Court.en_US
dc.format.extent1 document (37 pages)en_US
dc.publisherVanderbilt Law Reviewen_US
dc.subject.lcshJudicial process -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshDecision makingen_US
dc.subject.lcshUnited States. Supreme Court -- Reorganizationen_US
dc.title"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmakingen_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record