Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:15:22.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neo-Behavioralism—A Rebuttal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Wallace Mendelson  and
Fred Kort
Wallace Mendelson
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Fred Kort
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , December 1963 , pp. 951 - 953
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 951 note 1 Schubert, (ed.), Judicial Decision-Making (New York, 1963)Google Scholar.

page 951 note 2 The Roosevelt Court (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. xiGoogle Scholar.

page 952 note 3 Kort, , “Simultaneous Equations And Boolean Algebra In The Analysis of Judicial Decisions,” Law And Contemporary Problems, Vol. 28 (1963), pp. 143, 160CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Despite its date, this was published in August, 1963.

page 952 note 4 As to Alfange's assertion that “Pritchett is most emphatically not a behavioralist,” see my response to Pritchett, above.

page 952 note 5 359 U.S. 344 (1959).

page 952 note 6 360 U.S. 474 (1959).

page 952 note 7 For opposite responses to the over-broad opinion of the Court, see Thornhillv. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). In the former, there were no qualifying opinions, but the Court's language was cut down to size in a series of later decisions. In Youngstown, every judge who supported the “opinion of the Court” wrote a qualifying opinion-thus presumably reducing the occasion for surprise and apparent reversal in future cases. It has been said that the absence of qualifying opinions in Thornhill is due to a tradition which precludes them in a case involving a judge's first opinion for the Court.

page 952 note 8 See Strauss, , “An Epilogue” in Storing, Essays On The Scientific Study of Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 308Google Scholar.

page 952 note 9 Ulmer, , “Supreme Court Behavior And Civil Liberties,” The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 13 (1960), p. 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 953 note 10 See, however, Robert Dahl's behavioral conclusion: “… the role of the Court as a policy making institution is not simple; and it is an error to suppose that its functions can be either described or appraised by means of simple con-cepts drawn from democratic or moral theory.” “Decision Making In A Democracy: The Role of the Supreme Court As a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 6 (1958), p. 293Google Scholar.

page 953 note 11 Loc. cit., note 9, above, pp. 295, 311.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.