Write my article for me?
crossf at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU
Mon Jan 21 15:48:27 PST 2002
I think of all the justices in Casey, only one, Justice Kennedy, didn't
vote his ideology and may have voted out of respect for precedent. Yet it
only took that one to decide the case.
I should have mentioned Segal & Spaeth's book, which may be the best
discussion of precedent in the SC. They convince me that O'Connor voted
her ideological preferences in Casey but they're really straining to
At 01:21 PM 1/21/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>It's unclear to me why folks are do confident that Casey reflects the
influence of precedent. In terms of the justices ideological preferences
we know that Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy are less conservative than
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that
they are less opposed to abortion (in terms of their own personal policy
views) than the other conservatives. I know they *said* that their
decision in Casey reflects respect for precedent, but that's not the best
>For a perspective on Casey that raises these questions, see the opening of
Spaeth and Segal's Majority Rules and Minority Will (Cambridge 1999).
Since the subtitle of that book is ADHERENCE TO PRECEDENT ON THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT I would think that any law professor discussing this topic
would be professionally obligated to take their views into account.
>USC Political Science
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
More information about the Conlawprof