The document discusses three models of judicial decision making: the legal model, ideological/attitudinal model, and strategic model. It analyzes how each model may influence Supreme Court justices' decisions at different stages of the judicial process, from setting the agenda to oral arguments. However, the strategic model best explains decision making overall as it accounts for legal, ideological, and institutional factors, and how justices consider other justices' preferences. The document evaluates how elements of each model could apply at various stages, but the strategic model is most appropriate for understanding agenda setting specifically.
This document summarizes a book titled "The Politics of Judicial Independence" which examines fundamental questions about the independence of the judiciary and the legitimate political influences on courts. It discusses several essays in the book that address issues related to judicial independence such as conflicts between courts and other branches of government, criticism of judicial actions from political actors, and how to properly define and understand judicial independence. The document analyzes three essays in particular that focus on congressional checks on the Supreme Court, the inherent political connections of courts despite their independence, and how the quality of legal reasoning in court decisions influences political reactions.
India's supreme court and the legitimacy of pi lsShantanu Basu
The document discusses Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, specifically regarding environmental PIL cases handled by the Supreme Court of India. It notes that PIL differs from conventional litigation in being non-adversarial, having a prospective rather than retrospective orientation, and requiring an activist role from judges. It also examines whether PIL violates the separation of powers established in the Indian constitution by expanding the court's role. While PIL challenges the traditional separation of powers, the document argues that the Supreme Court's interventions may be legitimate given the failure of other branches of government to fulfill their duties. The document analyzes both benefits and criticisms of the Supreme Court's PIL activities and considers their implications for judicial legitimacy and democracy in India.
1. The document discusses Kenji Yoshino's 1994 paper that applies Harold Bloom's theory of poetic influence ("the anxiety of influence") to analyze the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey in light of the precedent case Roe v. Wade.
2. Yoshino analyzes how the Casey decision, like poems that aim to surpass strong precursors, struggled unsuccessfully to improve upon Roe in the same way literary texts struggle with influential precursors like Shakespeare.
3. The document provides context on the law and literature movement in American law schools and efforts to apply Bloomian poetics to understand rhetorical construction in judicial opinions and the doctrine of precedents.
Judge Posner delivered a keynote address discussing the role of judges in the 21st century. He outlined three main challenges: 1) keeping up with increasing scientific knowledge, 2) dealing with huge caseloads in federal courts, and 3) the future functions of artificial intelligence in adjudication. Posner argued judges should be more pragmatic than formalistic. He also discussed differences between how US and European judges operate, and said political preferences alone do not fully explain judicial decisions due to various contextual factors judges must consider.
Nature of Legal Doctrine: Axiomatic, Logical and Normative Discipline Preeti Sikder
Learning Outcome:
After completion of this lesson students will-
a) learn about the axiomatic nature of legal doctrine
b) learn about the logical nature of legal doctrine
c) learn about the normative nature of legal doctrine
d) be informed about the characteristics of legal data involved in legal research
Judge Richard Posner's book "How Judges Think" analyzes the thought processes of judges and seeks to understand judicial behavior. The book is divided into three parts, with the first examining the basic model of judging, the second elaborating on this model, and the third analyzing theories of law that justify judicial decisions. Posner argues that pretending the judicial function is simply dealing with cases is naïve, as judges also occasionally serve legislative functions by developing law. The book explores various theories of judicial behavior and constitutional interpretation, seeking to understand differences in how judges, justices, and legal academics approach the law.
Judge Posner outlines eight key contributions of legal pragmatism. Pragmatism supports a marketplace of ideas approach to free speech issues. It focuses on practical consequences rather than abstract concepts like intent. Pragmatism balances legalism with a focus on using law to further social welfare. It distinguishes literary from legal interpretation, requiring judges consider consequences. Pragmatism gives judges a sense of instrumentalism to balance stability and change. It relates law and economics without scientific foundations. Pragmatism emphasizes rhetoric and persuasion in legal discourse. The goal is not final answers but contingent approaches to address legal problems.
Learning Outcome: After completing the lesson students will be able to -
a) comprehend the scope and variety of legal research
b) prepare for learning about the different features of the legal doctrine
This document summarizes a book titled "The Politics of Judicial Independence" which examines fundamental questions about the independence of the judiciary and the legitimate political influences on courts. It discusses several essays in the book that address issues related to judicial independence such as conflicts between courts and other branches of government, criticism of judicial actions from political actors, and how to properly define and understand judicial independence. The document analyzes three essays in particular that focus on congressional checks on the Supreme Court, the inherent political connections of courts despite their independence, and how the quality of legal reasoning in court decisions influences political reactions.
India's supreme court and the legitimacy of pi lsShantanu Basu
The document discusses Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, specifically regarding environmental PIL cases handled by the Supreme Court of India. It notes that PIL differs from conventional litigation in being non-adversarial, having a prospective rather than retrospective orientation, and requiring an activist role from judges. It also examines whether PIL violates the separation of powers established in the Indian constitution by expanding the court's role. While PIL challenges the traditional separation of powers, the document argues that the Supreme Court's interventions may be legitimate given the failure of other branches of government to fulfill their duties. The document analyzes both benefits and criticisms of the Supreme Court's PIL activities and considers their implications for judicial legitimacy and democracy in India.
1. The document discusses Kenji Yoshino's 1994 paper that applies Harold Bloom's theory of poetic influence ("the anxiety of influence") to analyze the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey in light of the precedent case Roe v. Wade.
2. Yoshino analyzes how the Casey decision, like poems that aim to surpass strong precursors, struggled unsuccessfully to improve upon Roe in the same way literary texts struggle with influential precursors like Shakespeare.
3. The document provides context on the law and literature movement in American law schools and efforts to apply Bloomian poetics to understand rhetorical construction in judicial opinions and the doctrine of precedents.
Judge Posner delivered a keynote address discussing the role of judges in the 21st century. He outlined three main challenges: 1) keeping up with increasing scientific knowledge, 2) dealing with huge caseloads in federal courts, and 3) the future functions of artificial intelligence in adjudication. Posner argued judges should be more pragmatic than formalistic. He also discussed differences between how US and European judges operate, and said political preferences alone do not fully explain judicial decisions due to various contextual factors judges must consider.
Nature of Legal Doctrine: Axiomatic, Logical and Normative Discipline Preeti Sikder
Learning Outcome:
After completion of this lesson students will-
a) learn about the axiomatic nature of legal doctrine
b) learn about the logical nature of legal doctrine
c) learn about the normative nature of legal doctrine
d) be informed about the characteristics of legal data involved in legal research
Judge Richard Posner's book "How Judges Think" analyzes the thought processes of judges and seeks to understand judicial behavior. The book is divided into three parts, with the first examining the basic model of judging, the second elaborating on this model, and the third analyzing theories of law that justify judicial decisions. Posner argues that pretending the judicial function is simply dealing with cases is naïve, as judges also occasionally serve legislative functions by developing law. The book explores various theories of judicial behavior and constitutional interpretation, seeking to understand differences in how judges, justices, and legal academics approach the law.
Judge Posner outlines eight key contributions of legal pragmatism. Pragmatism supports a marketplace of ideas approach to free speech issues. It focuses on practical consequences rather than abstract concepts like intent. Pragmatism balances legalism with a focus on using law to further social welfare. It distinguishes literary from legal interpretation, requiring judges consider consequences. Pragmatism gives judges a sense of instrumentalism to balance stability and change. It relates law and economics without scientific foundations. Pragmatism emphasizes rhetoric and persuasion in legal discourse. The goal is not final answers but contingent approaches to address legal problems.
Learning Outcome: After completing the lesson students will be able to -
a) comprehend the scope and variety of legal research
b) prepare for learning about the different features of the legal doctrine
This document provides an overview of key concepts in information literacy and legal research. It discusses determining the scope of information needed, accessing information effectively, evaluating sources critically, and incorporating information into one's knowledge. It also covers primary vs secondary legal sources, jurisdiction, precedent, and the different types and sources of law in the United States legal system including common law, statutes, regulations, and court decisions.
Pierson v. Post was a 19th century case regarding fox hunting on uninhabited land. Pierson killed a fox that Post was pursuing. The issue was whether Post's pursuit of the fox was enough to establish property rights over it. The court concluded that possession, not just pursuit, is required to establish ownership over a wild animal. Otherwise, mere pursuit could allow anyone to claim ownership and lead to endless disputes. The dissent argued that a hunting party that organized and pursued a fox had a reasonable expectation of acquiring the animal. Considering farmers' interests in reducing crop-damaging foxes, pursuit may be enough to establish ownership.
This document provides guidance on how to carefully read and analyze statutes. It explains that statutes require attention to precise language and context, and outlines the organizational structure of statutes including titles, headings, chapters and sections. It emphasizes reading the entire context around a specific provision and defines important terms. The goal in reading statutes is not to summarize but to understand the reason for enactment, how it applies concretely, why it goes as far as it does and whether reform is needed. Interpretation considers both original and current policy context when plain meaning is unclear.
Various Constituents of Legal Literature
Understanding the various parts of the statutes
Relevance of General Clauses Act, 1897 in the Interpretation of statutes
Various Parts & Sections of Gazette of India
Distinctiveness of ratio decidendi & obiter dicta
Relation of Logic to Laws
Concept of Deductive and Inductive Reasoning as Tools of Legal Reasoning
This document discusses different approaches to legal reasoning including formalism, realism, positivism, consequentialism, neutrality, and perfectionism. It uses examples like the Speluncean Explorers case to illustrate how each approach would analyze an indeterminate legal issue. The document argues that perfectionism provides the most comprehensive solution by deriving legal rules from both positive law and more fundamental moral principles.
The document discusses legal reasoning and problem solving techniques for writing effective legal essays. It presents a 4-step method (CLEO) for legal analysis and writing: 1) Identify the claim, 2) Present the applicable law, 3) Evaluate the facts of the problem, and 4) Identify the outcome of the argument. Within each step, it provides guidance on how to structure arguments and effectively analyze problems using techniques like deductive, inductive, and analogical reasoning.
The document discusses the importance of logical reasoning skills for legal studies and practice. It outlines three main forms of logical reasoning used in law: deductive reasoning, inductive generalization, and analogy. Deductive reasoning involves proving a conclusion through major and minor premises. Inductive generalization arrives at broad conclusions based on specific examples. Analogy compares two things to draw conclusions about both. Understanding these logical reasoning structures is critical for legal writing, arguments, and success in law school.
This document summarizes the differences between distributive justice and procedural justice approaches in the criminal justice system. It analyzes how the two theories impact law enforcement policy, court procedures, and public perception of justice. Research shows that procedural justice, which focuses on fairness of process over equality of outcome, tends to promote greater public confidence and perception of a just system compared to distributive justice. The document concludes that procedural justice may better achieve a truly just society.
The court; insulating itself from politics through the doctrine of political ...Alexander Decker
The document discusses the doctrine of political questions, which allows courts to avoid ruling on issues that are deemed "political" in nature. It examines different theories on defining political questions, including the classical, prudential, opportunistic, cognitive, and normative theories. None of the theories perfectly define the scope of political questions. The document concludes that political questions refer to matters that the constitution assigns to the political branches of government to decide, or non-justiciable issues that courts refuse to rule on due to their political nature or potential encroachment on other branches' powers.
Justice In The Judicial System - How Can Judges Make Decisions That Contradic...Stephen Taylor Propaganda
Justice is an integral part of the judicial system. It is defined as the fair and equitable treatment of individuals in court proceedings and other legal matters. In contrast, facts are the evidence-based decisions made by a court or jury to determine guilt or innocence. While justice is based on principles of fairness and equity, facts are based on the evidence presented before a court or jury to make a decision. Therefore, justice and facts differ in that justice takes into account all aspects of a case while facts are limited to what can be proven in court. There's also the human factor here, where you can’t entirely tell what a judge or jury/judge together will decide, even taking into account all the facts of the case.
blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme courtAnthony Duenas
This study examines whether the wealth and resources of litigants influences outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court. It analyzes 350 public and private law cases from 2008. The study finds that a litigant's wealth and ability to harness resources does not significantly impact whether their appeal is granted. This contradicts previous research that found Filipino judges favored poorer litigants during the Marcos regime. The results imply that Supreme Court justices make decisions based on the legal merits of cases rather than being swayed by litigants' resources or backgrounds.
Question OneProvide an introduction for your company. What busin.docxcatheryncouper
Question One
Provide an introduction for your company. What business did you study (complete name)?
What is the name and title of the primary decision maker in the company?
What is your firm's Mission Statement? More importantly, what does your company do to achieve its Mission Statement and put it into action?
Insert Answer:
Question Two
How does you company segment its customers? (See Text, pp 174-175 for a discussion of market segmentation.)
Consumer markets are generally segmented by demographic, geographic, psychographic, or behavior characteristics. Business markets are usually segmented by geographic, customer based, or product use base.
Find an advertisement from your firm that targets one of these segments. It maybe be more difficult to find advertisements for companies that market only to other businesses. However, you should be able to find at least one advertisement.
Insert Answer:
Question Three
Identify a product your firm makes/provides that specifically targets one of the segments identified in the previous question. What is it about this product that makes it particularly attractive to this segment?
Insert Answer:
Question Four
Identify a competitor that makes/offers a product in direct competition with the product in the previous question. Describe that product and how the competitor promotes it. Which product does a better job of appealing to the target segment? What leads you to this conclusion? (In answering this question, it might be helpful if you put yourself in the role of a customer. Which product appears more attractive?)
Insert Answer:
Question Five
Read the Wiki article on SWOT analysis. Describe one current specific strength and one weakness that you believe your business would list in a SWOT analysis. Remember that Strengths/weaknesses describe things the firm currently faces. What is your firm doing to exploit the opportunity and to address the weakness? Is what they are doing effective?
Insert Answer:
Question Six
Describe one specific future opportunity and one threat that you believe your business would list in a SWOT analysis. Remember that opportunities/threats describe things the firm will face in the future. What is your firm doing to exploit the opportunity and to address the threat? Do you think they are doing the right thing?
Insert Answer:
Question Seven
Describe two issues that relate specifically to your company's resources: human, physical or financial. These might include things that the company is doing in employee recruitment, training, benefits, compensation, evaluation, geo-political risk etc. Or, it might involve things like getting raw materials, building new plants, moving production overseas, etc. If you cite a financial resources issue, you will be discussing something like the firm's sale of additional shares of stock or the borrowing of money. This is an item you will probably have to rely on news articles to find sources.
Insert Answer:
Question Eight
P ...
The document discusses different models for understanding Supreme Court decision-making: the attitudinal model, legal model, and societal model. The attitudinal model suggests personal preferences and values drive decisions, while the legal model emphasizes legal procedures and precedent. The societal model views justices as influenced by the broader culture. The document also examines concepts like judicial review, collective action problems in opinion-writing, and factors that constrain the Court like other branches of government.
The document discusses the history and structure of the U.S. Supreme Court. It notes that the Court dealt with economic issues in the 1790s and civil liberties during Earl Warren's time as Chief Justice. The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and any lower courts established by Congress. The document outlines the current structure of the federal court system, including 94 district courts and 12 appellate courts. It also examines factors presidents consider in nominating justices and models for understanding judicial decision-making.
5Week 3 – Reflection Paper Reflection Paper .docxalinainglis
5
Week 3 – Reflection Paper
Reflection Paper #3
Business Law
This week’s agenda reviewed the topics of how our judicial system works hand in hand with philosophy and legal interpretation. First and foremost, the podcast that reviews Judicial Philosophy in Legal Interpretation at the Supreme Court, talks about how those who work with and for the law make the choices and decisions they make and why. They have addressed how police officers, supreme court justices, and even judges evaluate the law and interpret the written law and reprimand or investigate certain situations based not only on mandated law, but they also use personal beliefs and experiences to make legal choices. It distinguishes how these justices may vote for and with the written law and the court system rather than their own beliefs and philosophy. There are many supreme court justices that are acting on behalf of the supreme court for 30 years, or what is considered a lifetime. When this occurs the law and supreme court views and dispositions do not change, the influences on the court hardly differ. The only way to change the beliefs of this supreme court committee is to enact a law, which could be constitutional, only allowing these justices to be involved for a max of 18 years. This then suggests that every other year a justice will retire thus changing the ideals, beliefs, and philosophical ideologies of those who are making choices on behalf of the law. Professor Ward Farnsworth had commented on a particular situation that I found very interesting; the situation was about a young man who was in an area known for illegal activity, the young man then began running as soon as he noticed the police officers. The police officers then had to determine, based off of previous experiences if the young man was running because he was hiding something, had done something illegal, or was in fact scared. Host Dan Rae had then mentioned that maybe the young man had grown up in an environment that led him to fear law enforcement, and he began running whether or not he had in fact done anything wrong. As Professor Ward then stated that the police officers experience may have been that individuals who run from law enforcement typically have done something they shouldn’t. You now have two very different perspectives and only life experience combined with the law can determine what actions to take.
In the case of George W. Bush vs Al Gore, the same principles have applied. When the state court systems approved the recount of the votes in various counties the supreme court then reviewed the case and decided that under the fourteenth amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, back down to the state level and the state of Florida felt as though they had no choice but to dismiss the case for a recount of the votes. It was determined that the actions that took place during this election in the state of Florida left many individuals feeling as though there were politics invo.
The document discusses judicial activism and restraint. It provides examples of Supreme Court cases where judicial activism or restraint was used, such as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education. Supporters of judicial activism believe judges should make policy decisions, while restraint supporters believe judges should interpret the law literally. The document also discusses criticisms of both philosophies and how judicial decisions can influence public policy.
This document provides an overview of the US legal system. It discusses how the system aims to provide security, predictability, and enforce societal values through substantive and procedural law. It also outlines different types of crimes and offenses, as well as how cases are handled in state and federal court systems from trial courts up to the US Supreme Court. The nomination and confirmation process for Supreme Court justices is also summarized.
The document discusses various techniques for analyzing legal issues and statutes, including:
1) Identifying the essential or determinative facts that would cause a court to reach a different decision if changed.
2) Outlining statutes to break them down into their elements in order to define the legal issue.
3) Using tools like plain meaning, legislative intent, canons of construction, and agency interpretations to resolve any ambiguities when interpreting statutes.
1. Doctrinal legal research focuses on analyzing legal principles and precedents from traditional sources like case laws and statutes.
2. Empirical legal research uses both qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence collected through methods like surveys, interviews and observations to understand how law impacts society.
3. The key difference is that doctrinal research examines what the law says, while empirical research studies what effect laws have and how people interact with the legal system.
This document discusses a study that analyzed jury deliberations in a mock civil trial involving a retail discrimination case. The study found that jurors who found for the plaintiff were more likely to express empathy for the plaintiff, while those finding for the defendant expressed a lack of empathy. Jurors who said the case fell on a continuum were more likely to find for the defendant. Juries mentioning the store followed policy found for the defendant, while mentions of not following policy did not affect the outcome. The document reviews concerns about biases influencing jury decisions and discusses models of group decision-making and compromise that may apply to jury deliberations.
Judge Richard Posner addresses pragmatic adjudication, how it differs from pragmatism philosophy, and whether appellate courts should adopt a pragmatic orientation. Pragmatic adjudication focuses on whether approaches work in practice and help judges anticipate consequences, rather than strictly adhering to past approaches. It acknowledges gaps in laws that require judges to consider context and consequences. Pragmatists are more tolerant of filling gaps and improvising without strict rules. While legalists focus only on the text of laws, pragmatists interpret texts within relevant contexts. The complex structure of the US legal system, including judicial review, means American judges must be more pragmatic than those in systems like the UK that follow strict rules.
This document provides an overview of key concepts in information literacy and legal research. It discusses determining the scope of information needed, accessing information effectively, evaluating sources critically, and incorporating information into one's knowledge. It also covers primary vs secondary legal sources, jurisdiction, precedent, and the different types and sources of law in the United States legal system including common law, statutes, regulations, and court decisions.
Pierson v. Post was a 19th century case regarding fox hunting on uninhabited land. Pierson killed a fox that Post was pursuing. The issue was whether Post's pursuit of the fox was enough to establish property rights over it. The court concluded that possession, not just pursuit, is required to establish ownership over a wild animal. Otherwise, mere pursuit could allow anyone to claim ownership and lead to endless disputes. The dissent argued that a hunting party that organized and pursued a fox had a reasonable expectation of acquiring the animal. Considering farmers' interests in reducing crop-damaging foxes, pursuit may be enough to establish ownership.
This document provides guidance on how to carefully read and analyze statutes. It explains that statutes require attention to precise language and context, and outlines the organizational structure of statutes including titles, headings, chapters and sections. It emphasizes reading the entire context around a specific provision and defines important terms. The goal in reading statutes is not to summarize but to understand the reason for enactment, how it applies concretely, why it goes as far as it does and whether reform is needed. Interpretation considers both original and current policy context when plain meaning is unclear.
Various Constituents of Legal Literature
Understanding the various parts of the statutes
Relevance of General Clauses Act, 1897 in the Interpretation of statutes
Various Parts & Sections of Gazette of India
Distinctiveness of ratio decidendi & obiter dicta
Relation of Logic to Laws
Concept of Deductive and Inductive Reasoning as Tools of Legal Reasoning
This document discusses different approaches to legal reasoning including formalism, realism, positivism, consequentialism, neutrality, and perfectionism. It uses examples like the Speluncean Explorers case to illustrate how each approach would analyze an indeterminate legal issue. The document argues that perfectionism provides the most comprehensive solution by deriving legal rules from both positive law and more fundamental moral principles.
The document discusses legal reasoning and problem solving techniques for writing effective legal essays. It presents a 4-step method (CLEO) for legal analysis and writing: 1) Identify the claim, 2) Present the applicable law, 3) Evaluate the facts of the problem, and 4) Identify the outcome of the argument. Within each step, it provides guidance on how to structure arguments and effectively analyze problems using techniques like deductive, inductive, and analogical reasoning.
The document discusses the importance of logical reasoning skills for legal studies and practice. It outlines three main forms of logical reasoning used in law: deductive reasoning, inductive generalization, and analogy. Deductive reasoning involves proving a conclusion through major and minor premises. Inductive generalization arrives at broad conclusions based on specific examples. Analogy compares two things to draw conclusions about both. Understanding these logical reasoning structures is critical for legal writing, arguments, and success in law school.
This document summarizes the differences between distributive justice and procedural justice approaches in the criminal justice system. It analyzes how the two theories impact law enforcement policy, court procedures, and public perception of justice. Research shows that procedural justice, which focuses on fairness of process over equality of outcome, tends to promote greater public confidence and perception of a just system compared to distributive justice. The document concludes that procedural justice may better achieve a truly just society.
The court; insulating itself from politics through the doctrine of political ...Alexander Decker
The document discusses the doctrine of political questions, which allows courts to avoid ruling on issues that are deemed "political" in nature. It examines different theories on defining political questions, including the classical, prudential, opportunistic, cognitive, and normative theories. None of the theories perfectly define the scope of political questions. The document concludes that political questions refer to matters that the constitution assigns to the political branches of government to decide, or non-justiciable issues that courts refuse to rule on due to their political nature or potential encroachment on other branches' powers.
Justice In The Judicial System - How Can Judges Make Decisions That Contradic...Stephen Taylor Propaganda
Justice is an integral part of the judicial system. It is defined as the fair and equitable treatment of individuals in court proceedings and other legal matters. In contrast, facts are the evidence-based decisions made by a court or jury to determine guilt or innocence. While justice is based on principles of fairness and equity, facts are based on the evidence presented before a court or jury to make a decision. Therefore, justice and facts differ in that justice takes into account all aspects of a case while facts are limited to what can be proven in court. There's also the human factor here, where you can’t entirely tell what a judge or jury/judge together will decide, even taking into account all the facts of the case.
blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme courtAnthony Duenas
This study examines whether the wealth and resources of litigants influences outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court. It analyzes 350 public and private law cases from 2008. The study finds that a litigant's wealth and ability to harness resources does not significantly impact whether their appeal is granted. This contradicts previous research that found Filipino judges favored poorer litigants during the Marcos regime. The results imply that Supreme Court justices make decisions based on the legal merits of cases rather than being swayed by litigants' resources or backgrounds.
Question OneProvide an introduction for your company. What busin.docxcatheryncouper
Question One
Provide an introduction for your company. What business did you study (complete name)?
What is the name and title of the primary decision maker in the company?
What is your firm's Mission Statement? More importantly, what does your company do to achieve its Mission Statement and put it into action?
Insert Answer:
Question Two
How does you company segment its customers? (See Text, pp 174-175 for a discussion of market segmentation.)
Consumer markets are generally segmented by demographic, geographic, psychographic, or behavior characteristics. Business markets are usually segmented by geographic, customer based, or product use base.
Find an advertisement from your firm that targets one of these segments. It maybe be more difficult to find advertisements for companies that market only to other businesses. However, you should be able to find at least one advertisement.
Insert Answer:
Question Three
Identify a product your firm makes/provides that specifically targets one of the segments identified in the previous question. What is it about this product that makes it particularly attractive to this segment?
Insert Answer:
Question Four
Identify a competitor that makes/offers a product in direct competition with the product in the previous question. Describe that product and how the competitor promotes it. Which product does a better job of appealing to the target segment? What leads you to this conclusion? (In answering this question, it might be helpful if you put yourself in the role of a customer. Which product appears more attractive?)
Insert Answer:
Question Five
Read the Wiki article on SWOT analysis. Describe one current specific strength and one weakness that you believe your business would list in a SWOT analysis. Remember that Strengths/weaknesses describe things the firm currently faces. What is your firm doing to exploit the opportunity and to address the weakness? Is what they are doing effective?
Insert Answer:
Question Six
Describe one specific future opportunity and one threat that you believe your business would list in a SWOT analysis. Remember that opportunities/threats describe things the firm will face in the future. What is your firm doing to exploit the opportunity and to address the threat? Do you think they are doing the right thing?
Insert Answer:
Question Seven
Describe two issues that relate specifically to your company's resources: human, physical or financial. These might include things that the company is doing in employee recruitment, training, benefits, compensation, evaluation, geo-political risk etc. Or, it might involve things like getting raw materials, building new plants, moving production overseas, etc. If you cite a financial resources issue, you will be discussing something like the firm's sale of additional shares of stock or the borrowing of money. This is an item you will probably have to rely on news articles to find sources.
Insert Answer:
Question Eight
P ...
The document discusses different models for understanding Supreme Court decision-making: the attitudinal model, legal model, and societal model. The attitudinal model suggests personal preferences and values drive decisions, while the legal model emphasizes legal procedures and precedent. The societal model views justices as influenced by the broader culture. The document also examines concepts like judicial review, collective action problems in opinion-writing, and factors that constrain the Court like other branches of government.
The document discusses the history and structure of the U.S. Supreme Court. It notes that the Court dealt with economic issues in the 1790s and civil liberties during Earl Warren's time as Chief Justice. The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and any lower courts established by Congress. The document outlines the current structure of the federal court system, including 94 district courts and 12 appellate courts. It also examines factors presidents consider in nominating justices and models for understanding judicial decision-making.
5Week 3 – Reflection Paper Reflection Paper .docxalinainglis
5
Week 3 – Reflection Paper
Reflection Paper #3
Business Law
This week’s agenda reviewed the topics of how our judicial system works hand in hand with philosophy and legal interpretation. First and foremost, the podcast that reviews Judicial Philosophy in Legal Interpretation at the Supreme Court, talks about how those who work with and for the law make the choices and decisions they make and why. They have addressed how police officers, supreme court justices, and even judges evaluate the law and interpret the written law and reprimand or investigate certain situations based not only on mandated law, but they also use personal beliefs and experiences to make legal choices. It distinguishes how these justices may vote for and with the written law and the court system rather than their own beliefs and philosophy. There are many supreme court justices that are acting on behalf of the supreme court for 30 years, or what is considered a lifetime. When this occurs the law and supreme court views and dispositions do not change, the influences on the court hardly differ. The only way to change the beliefs of this supreme court committee is to enact a law, which could be constitutional, only allowing these justices to be involved for a max of 18 years. This then suggests that every other year a justice will retire thus changing the ideals, beliefs, and philosophical ideologies of those who are making choices on behalf of the law. Professor Ward Farnsworth had commented on a particular situation that I found very interesting; the situation was about a young man who was in an area known for illegal activity, the young man then began running as soon as he noticed the police officers. The police officers then had to determine, based off of previous experiences if the young man was running because he was hiding something, had done something illegal, or was in fact scared. Host Dan Rae had then mentioned that maybe the young man had grown up in an environment that led him to fear law enforcement, and he began running whether or not he had in fact done anything wrong. As Professor Ward then stated that the police officers experience may have been that individuals who run from law enforcement typically have done something they shouldn’t. You now have two very different perspectives and only life experience combined with the law can determine what actions to take.
In the case of George W. Bush vs Al Gore, the same principles have applied. When the state court systems approved the recount of the votes in various counties the supreme court then reviewed the case and decided that under the fourteenth amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, back down to the state level and the state of Florida felt as though they had no choice but to dismiss the case for a recount of the votes. It was determined that the actions that took place during this election in the state of Florida left many individuals feeling as though there were politics invo.
The document discusses judicial activism and restraint. It provides examples of Supreme Court cases where judicial activism or restraint was used, such as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education. Supporters of judicial activism believe judges should make policy decisions, while restraint supporters believe judges should interpret the law literally. The document also discusses criticisms of both philosophies and how judicial decisions can influence public policy.
This document provides an overview of the US legal system. It discusses how the system aims to provide security, predictability, and enforce societal values through substantive and procedural law. It also outlines different types of crimes and offenses, as well as how cases are handled in state and federal court systems from trial courts up to the US Supreme Court. The nomination and confirmation process for Supreme Court justices is also summarized.
The document discusses various techniques for analyzing legal issues and statutes, including:
1) Identifying the essential or determinative facts that would cause a court to reach a different decision if changed.
2) Outlining statutes to break them down into their elements in order to define the legal issue.
3) Using tools like plain meaning, legislative intent, canons of construction, and agency interpretations to resolve any ambiguities when interpreting statutes.
1. Doctrinal legal research focuses on analyzing legal principles and precedents from traditional sources like case laws and statutes.
2. Empirical legal research uses both qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence collected through methods like surveys, interviews and observations to understand how law impacts society.
3. The key difference is that doctrinal research examines what the law says, while empirical research studies what effect laws have and how people interact with the legal system.
This document discusses a study that analyzed jury deliberations in a mock civil trial involving a retail discrimination case. The study found that jurors who found for the plaintiff were more likely to express empathy for the plaintiff, while those finding for the defendant expressed a lack of empathy. Jurors who said the case fell on a continuum were more likely to find for the defendant. Juries mentioning the store followed policy found for the defendant, while mentions of not following policy did not affect the outcome. The document reviews concerns about biases influencing jury decisions and discusses models of group decision-making and compromise that may apply to jury deliberations.
Judge Richard Posner addresses pragmatic adjudication, how it differs from pragmatism philosophy, and whether appellate courts should adopt a pragmatic orientation. Pragmatic adjudication focuses on whether approaches work in practice and help judges anticipate consequences, rather than strictly adhering to past approaches. It acknowledges gaps in laws that require judges to consider context and consequences. Pragmatists are more tolerant of filling gaps and improvising without strict rules. While legalists focus only on the text of laws, pragmatists interpret texts within relevant contexts. The complex structure of the US legal system, including judicial review, means American judges must be more pragmatic than those in systems like the UK that follow strict rules.
The document outlines past questions (PYQ) from jurisprudence exams in Malaysia from 2012-2019. It includes questions on various jurisprudence topics such as legal positivism, natural law theory, theories of justice by philosophers like Rawls, legal pluralism, the relationship between law and morality, and functions of law. Many questions ask students to discuss philosophical concepts and theories in the context of laws and legal systems in Malaysia.
InstructionsIntegral to this course will be the ability to read,.docxJeniceStuckeyoo
Instructions
Integral to this course will be the ability to read, understand, brief, and discuss the cases of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The following information, "How to Brief Case Law,” discusses how to master these tasks. This information will be referenced and used throughout the course, including in the unit assessments.
The official site of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is a useful and beneficial tool. Some cases even provide the ability to listen to the oral arguments. This site could be used to supplement any additional information the student might need.
Note: There are numerous sites on the internet that provide case briefs. If any student case briefs are copied, there will be an automatic score of zero for the respective unit.
How to Brief Case Law
A court uses the following components in case law. You should use these components when you brief, or summarize, case law. Each component is detailed below:
1) Proper and full legal citation
2) Procedural history
3) Facts
4) Issue(s)
5) Holding, including vote
6) Rule(s) of law, Legal principle that was used/created
7) Rationale reasoning/analysis use by court
8) Significance—What do we have now, that we did not have before this case?
Case Brief Explanation
Proper and full legal citation
List the title of the case and the case’s legal reference according to APA standards.
Example:
Miranda v. Arizona
, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Procedural history
Typically, there is a section that covers the judicial history, that is a very short summary of what happened at each preceding stage: trial court of XX found the defendant guilty (as described in the “Facts” section), (party name) appealed based upon (specify legal issue), and the appellate court affirmed or reversed, it was then appealed to the (State) Supreme Court which reversed or affirmed, and based upon the Constitutional issues of 1,2,3, (these are enumerated in the “issues” section) the case was appealed to the (name the federal court), that affirmed or reversed, and then (party name) appealed to the USSC on the grounds of (very specific constitutional grounds); the court granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case on this specific basis).
Facts of the case
Facts of the case should be the ABSOLUTE fewest words possible to convey the legally relevant issues. No details are needed unless they are specifically related to the particular legal challenge bringing us to the United States Supreme Court (USSC). It takes discipline and practice to keep this to a few lines while still capturing the essentials. This section ends with a conviction and provides a segue to the next section.
Issues
Issues are answered using yes or no question(s) that identify the larger constitutional question that will be considered by the USSC and is typically quite specific in terms of a legal issue, but not necessarily specific to the set of facts in this case. It is possible that a sing.
The document provides an overview of a business law course, including key concepts that will be introduced. It discusses the sources of law, classifications of law, and limits placed on government by the US Constitution. It emphasizes that critical thinking is important for understanding the legal system. Critical thinking involves questioning information, considering alternative explanations, avoiding biases, and examining the evidence and assumptions underlying arguments. The document provides several rules for students to follow to develop their critical thinking skills for the course.
Example Of The Short Version Of Judicial Activism
Essay on The Role of the Judiciary
Judicial Activism: The Wade V. Roe Case
Judicial Restraint Vs. Judicial Activism
Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint
Judicial Restraint Analysis
Judicial Activism And Judicial Restraint
Judicial Restraint Essay
Judicial Activism In Canada
Judicial Restraint Vs Judicial Activism
Judicial Restraint/Activism Essay
High Level Of Judicial Activism
Judicial Injustice: A Case Of Judicial Activism
Judicial Activism In American Society
Judicial Activism Research Paper
Judicial Activism
Advantages Of Judicial Activism
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint Essay
The document discusses 9 theories of judicial behavior described by Judge Richard Posner: attitudinal, strategic, sociological, psychological, economic, organizational, pragmatic, phenomenological, and legalistic. It explains that each theory provides some insights but no single theory can fully explain judicial decision-making. The document also examines differences between how judges think and behave, and notes theories should account for unconscious factors influencing both.
1. Comprehensive Exam, Spring 2012 3 April 2012 Elizabeth Anaya
Page | 1
Section B, #7
The three models used to evaluate, and even predict (or attempt to predict) judicial
decision making are: the Legal Model, the Ideological (or Attitudinal Model), and the Strategic
(Sophisticated voting) Model. They are used in essence, to determine the degree of influence
political factors have on Supreme Court Justice Decision making. There is evidence to support
each model; however the strongest evidence supports the strategic model. I will discuss each
model in detail, and then evaluate the models in action and each stage during the hearing of a
case, showing the importance of the Strategic model at each one, as well as how the strategic
model is used in addition to the legal and ideological model at these points.
In The Supreme Court and The Attitudinal Model Revisited (2002), authors Jeffrey A.
Segal and Harold J. Spaeth explain the features of the legal model in great detail. They establish
the importance of Constitutional interpretations, citing “framers’ intent” as a consideration that
many justices cite in their opinions. This implies that justices not only look at what the
Constitution says on an issue, but also at what that meant at the time from the framers’
perspectives. Segal and Spaeth also explain the importance of precedence in deciding cases.
Precedence, or relying on a previous court’s interpretation of law, is inarguably the most
legalistic way of deciding a case. The only instance in which Stare Decisis, or the practice or
relying on precedent, would not be profoundly important would be a case in which no case had
been heard yet, and no precedent had been set.
George and Epstein (1992) also discuss the idea of legal decision making. In their
writing, they express the opinion that the Legal Model is the model that should be used—the
model that best represents the way that most people would expect of would like the Supreme
2. Comprehensive Exam, Spring 2012 3 April 2012 Elizabeth Anaya
Page | 2
Court to make decisions. It also leads to the understanding that the legal model is the most basic
and theoretical in its explanation of decision making.
Adherence to previous cases would certainly demonstrate that the Supreme Court placed
a very high value on legal factors in decision making. As the justices on the Supreme Court have
been charged with upholding the Constitution, it would be logical to assume that the Legal
Model holds a great deal of importance and influence, however, an assumption of that nature
would disregard the fact that other influences hold power in the decision-making process as well.
Knight and Epstein (1996) state in their article “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” precedence
is very important to consider, but difficult to measure. In fact, these authors discuss the idea that
for the other models (the Ideological Model and Strategic Model), the data provided relies
heavily on how the justice voted in order to establish which model was most prevalent, whereas
in order to determine the influence of precedent, the research would need to focus on other
aspects, such as appeals made in the name of the precedent or to the Constitution directly, either
by a justice or by an attorney. Their results show that attorneys often do cite precedent when
making appeals to the Supreme Court during Oral Arguments, and yet cases exist in which the
Supreme Court has decided in opposition of these cases. This violates normative ideals, but is it
wrong? One argument made by George and Epstein (1992) shows that if precedent were truly
constraining, laws would not adapt to new times. The most important question that one must ask
is “Why does this occur?” It can be answered using the other two models.
If it is true that justices “subscribe to the legal model…for public consumption” (Segal
and Spaeth 2002, 48), then they must be considering what George and Epstein (1996) referred to
as “extralegal” factors. The most obvious extralegal factor is ideology. Wahlbeck, Spriggs and
3. Comprehensive Exam, Spring 2012 3 April 2012 Elizabeth Anaya
Page | 3
Maltzman (1999) find that justices do, in fact, consider ideology when making decisions. They
state that justices are “rational actors who pursue their policy goals within constraints (1999,
507). In “Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench: Clinton’s District Court
Appointees,” Jennifer Segal explains the Ideological, or Attitudinal, Model, stating that attitudes,
which are created from background characteristics, influence decisions. Whether or not the use
of this model can be used to fully explain all decisions made is debatable, but in “Passing and
Strategic Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court (2005),” authors Timothy Johnson, James F.
Spriggs, II and Paul J. Wahlbeck find in the results from their data that the Chief Justice will
normally assign the duty of authoring an opinion to one of his or her ideological allies. This
shows that even the Chief Justice is not free from extralegal influences.
If political factors are important, but legal factors are also important for justices, the
question as to how justices decide cases is still unsolved. The third, and most explanatory model
of judicial decision making is the Strategic Model. The strategic model is less concrete than the
Legal model, which holds that justices vote according to their interpretation of the Constitution,
as well as any established precedent, and the Ideological Model, which establishes that justices
vote according to their ideological beliefs. The strategic model uses features from each of the
other two models (in varying degrees), and also often takes into consideration any institutional
factors (such as the manner in which voting takes place, etc.). Johnson, Spriggs and Wahlbeck
(2005) explain that Strategic voting can only take place in situations in which a justice has full
knowledge of his or her colleagues’ preferences. That also means that justices must be strategic
in learning what these preferences are. Perhaps they will use previous voting records to base
their understanding of their colleagues’ preferences. Regardless of how they come too their
conclusions, strategic behavior is clearly at the heart of justice decisions.
4. Comprehensive Exam, Spring 2012 3 April 2012 Elizabeth Anaya
Page | 4
There are many explanations for what strategic decision making is and why it might
occur. According to Caldeira, Wright and Zorn(1999) , a strategic vote is seen when a justice
would prefer to vote for one choice, but for some reason votes for another. Wahlbeck, Spriggs
and Maltzman (1999) offer reasons that this change might occur. One is that within the court,
there is an emphasized importance placed on unanimity. According to the authors, a decision
with separate opinions is viewed as weak, an in turn, weakens the Supreme Court as an
institution. Along these same lines, the authors establish that if a justice disagrees with the
opinion author, he or she will be more likely to abstain from authoring a separate opinion if the
author had voted in the past with the individual justice. The use of reciprocity in voting is also
very strategic.
The use of these three models is apparent at different points during the process of
hearing and deciding on a case. The first stage of a case is agenda setting. In this stage the
Supreme Court will take a vote of Certiorari to determine whether or not it will hear a case. This
vote could be based on legal factors (for example, does the Supreme Court need to make a
statement about an issue due to disagreements at lower levels?) This might also coincide with
the level of salience that a case has, which greatly influences Cert Votes. The other reasons to
hear a case are written in the U.S. Constitution’s Rule 10, which mentions that the Supreme
Court should hear a case if the Justices feel that a mistake had been made by another court.
On the other hand, justices might decide to hear a case based on ideological ideals as
well, although the “Rule of Four”, or the rule that establishes that four justices must vote to hear
a case in order for it to appear on the agenda, makes the use of solely political factors unlikely, as
justices on both sides of an issue may vote in favor of hearing a case. The most appropriate
model to evaluate agenda setting is the Strategic Model. According to Ryan J. Owens in “The
5. Comprehensive Exam, Spring 2012 3 April 2012 Elizabeth Anaya
Page | 5
Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting (2010)”, political factors alone cannot
explain Cert votes because even at this point, political factors cannot dominate choices of
justices. This is due to the fact, Owens explains, that the justices must consider the ideologies of
both the President and Congress. Congress has the power to overturn Court decisions, and the
President, who enacts laws, may choose simply to ignore rulings by the Supreme Court. For that
reason, even though no decision is being made on the case, the opinion of these institutions (and
likely the majority opinion of the voting public) must be considered.
The next stage in the process is Oral Arguments. Briefs are submitted by both
parties involved in a case, and oral arguments are heard by the Court. Oral arguments are
important not only because they allow justices to gain a better understanding of the facts of a
case and of the attitudes of their fellow justices, but also because the Oral Arguments stage takes
place in the form of a public hearing. Therefore the justices must consider public reaction to any
apparent biases in their questioning. The legal model plays a major role in this process due to
the fact, as mentioned before, that Knight and Epstien (1996) discuss the influence of legal
precedent in attorneys’ statements made during oral arguments. Justices will make the same
appeals in their questioning during oral arguments. George and Epstein (1992) state that “rules
of law are ‘typically available to support either side.’” Appeals to law are important in this phase
primarily because the records from these hearings are public. But if George and Epstein’s theory
is assumed to be accurate, the legal model is not the primary model in place. The justices must
depend on strategy when deciding how to utilize precedent and Constitutional law in order to
achieve their desired policy goals. The ideological model is not prominent in this phase. It can
be seen in the types of questions that the justices ask the attorneys and each other.
6. Comprehensive Exam, Spring 2012 3 April 2012 Elizabeth Anaya
Page | 6
Conference voting and Opinion assignment are the next phases in the process of a case.
As shown earlier, authors Johnson, Spriggs and Wahlbeck (2005) show ideological ideals at play
during these phases in the way that the Chief Justice goes about assigning opinion authorship.
The Legal model is not as prevalent during this time, but rather institutional norms and rules
control the process. The Chief justice does not only act on ideological grounds during
conference voting and opinion assignment, however. Johnson, Spriggs, and Wahlbeck show that
the Chief justice might vote strategically against his preferred choice in order to assign the
majority opinion to a colleague with similar ideas about the case. While the preferred choice
would have left the Chief Justice with the minority, and ability to assign majority opinion allows
for more power and control over the process and over the policy inferences of the case. Once the
opinions are drafted, justices consider their ideological ideals, as well as institutional norms, such
as unanimity, in deciding whether to sign on to or author and opinion.
Once they have done so, the decision of the Court is announced and the precedent is set.
While hearing cases is not the only time that justices might act strategically. When deciding
whether or not (or simply when) to retire, justices, according to Zorn and Van Winkle (2000),
they take into account the political environment in which their replacement would be chosen. Of
course, the decision to retire is not purely based on politics. The authors also consider age and
health factors in their research. Their results show, with these considerations accounted for, that
the political implications are very influential in their decisions. Similarly, Nelsen and Ringsmuth
(2009) discuss the concept of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is based off of the number of
dissenting opinions, which determines where the justice lies within the ideological makeup of the
Court. If they are out of line with their colleagues, their number of dissents will be high, and job
satisfaction will be low. Their results show, contrary to what one might assume, that as the
7. Comprehensive Exam, Spring 2012 3 April 2012 Elizabeth Anaya
Page | 7
ideological distance from Senate increases, the likelihood that a justice retires decreases. This
shows that despite low levels of job satisfaction, a justice will remain on the Court until a
friendly Senate has been elected and they are more likely to be replaced by someone
ideologically similar to themselves.
The decision making models of judicial behavior take into account many factors, but
largely ignore institutional influences and boundaries. Although institutional norms are
addressed within the literature on decision making, their influence is largely underrepresented.
The Supreme Court maintains a high level of approval from the masses relative to the other
branches of government, and justices must vote with the validity of the institution in mind. It
could be argued that the strategic model, which is seen to be the best explanatory model,
incorporates some of these, in that justices must act strategically to enact their preferred
ideologies despite institutional barriers, but in actuality, these barriers shape the actions and
decisions of the justices more so than the legal, ideological or strategic models do. Therefore,
future research in the area of judicial decision making needs to focus less on the extent of
ideological influence in the court, and more on the ways that the design of the Court prevents
these influences.