Analysis Of Murphy, Marshaling The Court By Khalil Franklin

941 Words4 Pages

Khalil Franklin: Response paper; Murphy, Marshaling the Court: the leadership and bargaining, and the judicial process. Decision-making power of individual justices is shared among them. Given the authority of each individual justice, one must persuade only four of his colleagues, but also to sign on to the majority opinion [see page 2]. To measure political leadership, the role of the chief justice can be studied on the basis of political leadership. Personality spectrum. Thesis: “that judges, if they act rationally, must weigh all the alternatives” [see page 641]. Discussion- analysis of strategies and tactics. Assumptions made by the author; (1) historical role of a free society, has been deeply embedded in the American judiciary, (2) the …show more content…

The CJ is present in open Court and is especially important in conference [see page 643] Since CJ gives his view first, he may withdraw the court from a case of less importance, and focus attention toward a case that is more likely to cause disagreement [see page 643]. During OA, if the CJ notices tension among the justices he has ability to exercise authority and lower tensions (stop debate or appeal to hurt …show more content…

The article explains Stone allowed angered argument to continue and even would join in the altercation. Marshal argues, in his five years as CJ, Stone altered the authoritative expectation of the position in that he erased the dominate structure and strategies established by predecessors. However, this may not be true… the other members of the Court are themselves factors that contribute to both functions. There are instances in which Hughes, a stubborn intellect, would change his mind his brethren expressed their interpretations (Hill v. Wallace), at first he signed on to the interpretation of the statute being constitutional, and later changed his interpretation and his vote. To bargain: Justices’ have votes and concurrences as an option in the bargaining process [see page 657], with this, if a party reneges on the bargain the justice has his authority given to him in his position as a sanction (more often than not, the justices uses his dissenting or concurring opinion as an option) [see page 657; letter sent to Frankfurter from