How Many Judges Does It Take to Make a Supreme Court

John V. Orth
{"title":"How Many Judges Does It Take to Make a Supreme Court","authors":"John V. Orth","doi":"10.5860/choice.44-4726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why do appellate courts always have an odd number of judges? And what does the answer tell us about changing concepts of law? How can common law be unconstitutional? Why does the power of judges depend on accurate court reporting? Because legal education today has come to focus so much on teaching students \"\"how to think like lawyers,\"\" some subjects do not fit comfortably in law school curricula. John Orth, a distinguished senior law scholar, here explores some of these neglected but important topics. His insightful volume invites students of the law to look at the origins of accepted legal practices as a means of gaining insight into the judicial role and the evolution of common law. In six carefully reasoned and clearly argued articles, Orth presents the familiar in a fresh light. He considers, in addition to the questions already mentioned, how the centuries-old common law tradition interacts with statutory law-making, why claims that individual rights are grounded in common law are suspect, and how the common law uses what it learns about the past. In considering these questions related to common law and its remarkable longevity, Orth illuminates both its interaction with written constitutions and its longstanding preoccupation with procedure and property. And by questioning the assertion that individualism was the cornerstone of common law, he deftly resolves an objection that liberal scholars sometimes raise concerning common law - its connection to the Lochner era of Supreme Court jurisprudence. How many judges does it take to make a supreme court? As Orth observes, the institutional novelty of odd numbers of judges provided a means to break ties but did nothing to guarantee acceptance of their decisions. By demonstrating that what seems obvious about the law today was not always so, he cogently addresses changing perceptions of law and invites its future practitioners not only to think like lawyers but also to be more fully grounded in the law.","PeriodicalId":81001,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional commentary","volume":"19 1","pages":"681-692"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional commentary","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-4726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Why do appellate courts always have an odd number of judges? And what does the answer tell us about changing concepts of law? How can common law be unconstitutional? Why does the power of judges depend on accurate court reporting? Because legal education today has come to focus so much on teaching students ""how to think like lawyers,"" some subjects do not fit comfortably in law school curricula. John Orth, a distinguished senior law scholar, here explores some of these neglected but important topics. His insightful volume invites students of the law to look at the origins of accepted legal practices as a means of gaining insight into the judicial role and the evolution of common law. In six carefully reasoned and clearly argued articles, Orth presents the familiar in a fresh light. He considers, in addition to the questions already mentioned, how the centuries-old common law tradition interacts with statutory law-making, why claims that individual rights are grounded in common law are suspect, and how the common law uses what it learns about the past. In considering these questions related to common law and its remarkable longevity, Orth illuminates both its interaction with written constitutions and its longstanding preoccupation with procedure and property. And by questioning the assertion that individualism was the cornerstone of common law, he deftly resolves an objection that liberal scholars sometimes raise concerning common law - its connection to the Lochner era of Supreme Court jurisprudence. How many judges does it take to make a supreme court? As Orth observes, the institutional novelty of odd numbers of judges provided a means to break ties but did nothing to guarantee acceptance of their decisions. By demonstrating that what seems obvious about the law today was not always so, he cogently addresses changing perceptions of law and invites its future practitioners not only to think like lawyers but also to be more fully grounded in the law.
最高法院需要多少名法官
为什么上诉法院的法官总是奇数?这个答案告诉了我们关于法律观念变化的什么?普通法怎么会违宪?为什么法官的权力取决于准确的法庭报告?因为今天的法律教育过于注重教学生“如何像律师一样思考”,所以有些科目并不适合法学院的课程。约翰·奥斯,一位杰出的高级法律学者,在这里探讨了这些被忽视但重要的话题。他富有洞察力的卷邀请学生的法律,看看接受的法律实践的起源作为一种手段,获得深入了解司法角色和普通法的演变。在六篇经过仔细推理、论证清晰的文章中,诺斯以一种全新的视角呈现了熟悉的事物。除了已经提到的问题之外,他还考虑了几个世纪以来的普通法传统如何与成文法的制定相互作用,为什么个人权利以普通法为基础的主张是可疑的,以及普通法如何利用它对过去的了解。在考虑这些与普通法及其显著的长寿相关的问题时,奥斯阐明了普通法与成文宪法的相互作用以及它对程序和财产的长期关注。通过质疑个人主义是普通法基石的断言,他巧妙地解决了自由派学者有时提出的关于普通法的异议——它与洛克纳时代最高法院判例的联系。最高法院由多少名法官组成?正如奥斯所观察到的,奇数法官的制度新颖性提供了一种打破联系的手段,但无助于保证他们的决定被接受。通过证明当今法律中显而易见的东西并不总是如此,他很有说服力地阐述了人们对法律观念的变化,并邀请未来的法律从业者不仅要像律师一样思考,还要更充分地以法律为基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信