Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court (SUNY Series in American Constitutionalism)

When justices write or join a concurring opinion, they demonstrate their preferences over substantive legal rules. Concurrences provide a way for justices to express their views about the law, to engage in a dialogue of law with each other, the legal community, the public, and Congress. This important study is the first systematic examination of the content of Supreme Court concurrences. While previous work on Supreme Court decision making focuses solely on the outcome of cases, Pamela C. Corley tackles the content of Supreme Court concurring opinions to show the reasoning behind each justice's decision. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis, Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court offers a rich and detailed portrait of judicial decision making by studying the process of opinion writing and the formation of legal doctrine through the unique lens of concurrences. Pamela C. Corley is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University. Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court......Page 5 Contents......Page 9 Illustrations......Page 11 Acknowledgments......Page 13 1. Introduction......Page 15 2. Why Justices Write or Join: Modeling Concurring Behavior......Page 35 3. Potential Concurrences: Insight from Justices Blackmun and Marshall......Page 55 4. The Impact of Concurring Opinions......Page 85 5. Conclusion......Page 109 Appendix......Page 115 Notes......Page 135 References......Page 143 Table of Cases......Page 153 C......Page 155 D......Page 156 J......Page 157 P......Page 158 S......Page 159 Z......Page 160 Why Justices Write Or Join : Modeling Concurring Behavior -- Potential Concurrences : Insight From Justices Blackmun And Marshall -- The Impact Of Concurring Opinions. Pamela C. Corley. Includes Bibliographical References (p. 129-138) And Index.