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

存在于选举问责制之上，最高法院？美国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裁决提供逻辑上连贯的理由来证明其权威的正当性，也就是说，案件中的判决是根据多数法官支持的前提作出的。如果法院的一项裁决在逻辑上不连贯，那么它的判决就没有理由得到多数法官的支持。本研究探讨了1946年至2010年间美国最高法院逻辑不连贯判决的发生、频率和影响。为了解决这些难题，本项目进行了三个相关的分析：首先，随着时间的推移，识别总体上不连贯的决策，并探索制度变革如何影响一致性；其次，调查个别案件中不连贯判决的相关性，以寻找案件层面上抑制或鼓励不连贯的法律或体制因素的证据，同时确定法律领域中最不连贯的领域；第三，确定不连贯的判决在何种程度上不同于其他判决在下级法院的使用和处理。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。本研究为逻辑不连贯的存在、相关关系和影响提供了第一个系统的经验证据。这一证据为司法改革倡导者之间的激烈辩论提供了依据，一些人声称，不连贯的可能性需要对法院、委员会、董事会和其他机构进行激烈的改革，而另一些人则反对这种戏剧性的行动。关于不相干的频率和后果的系统证据将推动这场辩论向前发展。此外，进一步了解司法机构的结构如何影响其后续产出和影响力的质量，可为创建新的司法机构以及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低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者的广泛兴趣。

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.