Doctoral Dissertation Research in DRMS: Logical Incoherence in the United States Supreme Court

存在于选举责任之上的，最高法院？的合法性部分取决于其推理的说服力。原则上，最高法院应该通过为其判决提供逻辑上连贯的理由来证明其权威，即案件的判决是在大多数法官支持的前提下作出的。如果最高法院的判决在逻辑上是不连贯的，那么其判决的任何理由都不能赢得大多数法官的支持。本研究探讨了1946年至2010年美国最高法院逻辑不一致的判决的发生率，频率和影响。为了解决这些问题，本项目进行了三个相关的分析：第一，识别随着时间的推移，在总体上不一致的决策，并探讨制度变迁如何影响一致性;第二，调查个别案件中不一致决定的相关因素，以证明案件一级的法律的或体制因素抑制或鼓励不一致，同时也确定法律领域中存在和最不存在不一致的问题;第三，确定不一致的决定在下级法院的使用和处理中与其他决定的不同程度。最后的分析使用了最高法院意见书中下级巡回法院引用的原始数据，该研究首次提供了逻辑不连贯的存在、相关性和影响的系统性实证证据。这一证据为司法改革倡导者之间的激烈辩论提供了信息，因为一些人声称，不一致的可能性需要对法院、委员会、董事会和其他机构进行大刀阔斧的改革，而另一些人则反对这种戏剧性的行动。有系统地证明不一致的频率和后果将推动这一辩论。此外，更好地了解司法机构的结构如何影响其随后的产出和影响的质量，可以为创建新的司法机构沿着其他集体决策机构的行为者提供指导。此外，该研究的副产品之一将是一个独特而丰富的下级法院引用最高法院意见的数据集，这应该引起学者和从业人员的广泛兴趣。

Existing above the accountability of elections, the Supreme Court?s legitimacy depends in part on the persuasiveness of its reasoning. In principle, the Court ought to justify its authority by providing logically coherent reasons for its decisions, that is the judgment in a case follows from premises supported by a majority of justices. If a decision of the Court is logically incoherent, then no rationale for its judgment carries a majority of justices. This study explores the occurrence, frequency, and impacts of logically incoherent decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court from 1946-2010. To address these puzzles, this project conducts three related analyses: first, identification of incoherent decisions in the aggregate over time and exploration of how institutional change affects coherence; second, investigation of the correlates of incoherent decisions in individual cases for evidence of legal or institutional factors at the case level which curb or encourage incoherence, while also identification of the areas of law are and least plagued by incoherence; and, third, determination of the extent to which incoherent decisions differ from others in their usage and treatment in the lower courts. This final analysis uses original data on lower circuit court citations in Supreme Court opinions.This study provides the first systematic empirical evidence of the existence, correlates, and effects of logical incoherence. This evidence informs the lively debate among judicial reform advocates as some claim that the possibility of incoherence necessitates drastic reforms of courts, committees, boards, and other bodies while others argue against such dramatic action. Systematic evidence of the frequency and consequences of incoherence will move this debate forward. Further, a greater understanding of how the structure of judicial institutions affects the quality of their subsequent output and influence may provide guidance to actors creating new judiciaries, along with other collective decision making bodies. Additionally, one of the byproducts of the study will be a unique and rich dataset of lower court citations to Supreme Court opinions which should be of broad interest to scholars and practitioners.