Suchergebnisse

The conflict between the parallel rule-making systems of civil service and collective bargaining has existed in local and state employment since collective bargaining emerged among large numbers of these employees. This article traces the development of a number of legal theories tried by courts in a number of key states to resolve this dilemma. It concludes with a more detailed analysis of the evolution of court opinion in Ohio resulting from the imposition of its 1983 Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. Lessons for drafting future legislation in other states are abstracted from this analysis.

Six different notions of 'political' are commonly used in discussions of the US Supreme Court. All six are familiar, but the distinctions among them are seldom carefully drawn. The six are: (1) purely definitional, in the sense that the Supreme Court, as an appellate court of last resort inevitably authoritatively allocates values; (2) empirical, in the sense that litigants use the Court to try to achieve their political purposes; (3) influence seeking, in the sense that the justices have a natural desire to prevail in arguments within the court; (4) prudential, in the sense that the justices frequently consider the probable consequences of their decisions; (5) policy-oriented, in the – usually pejorative – sense that justices are said to use the Court and the law as a cover for pursuing their own policy and other goals; and (6) systemic, in the sense that the Court's decisions frequently, as a matter of fact, have consequences for other parts of the American political system. These six notions are considered in the context of recent abortion decisions.

Examines the interaction between politics and law in the context of recent abortion decisions.

THE FOLLOWING SIX NOTIONS OF "POLITICAL" ARE COMMONLY USED IN DISCUSSIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: (1) PURELY DEFINITIONAL, IN THE SENSE THAT THE SUPREME COURT, AS AN APPELLATE COURT OF LAST RESORT INEVITABLY AUTHORITATIVELY ALLOCATES VALUES; (2) EMPIRICAL, IN THE SENSE THAT LITIGANTS USE THE COURT TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THEIR OWN POLITICAL PURPOSES; (3) INFLUENCE-SEEKING, IN THE SENSE THAT THE JUSTICES HAVE A NATURAL DESIRE TO PREVAIL IN ARGUMENTS WITHIN THE COURT; (4) PRUDENTIAL, IN THE SENSE THAT THE JUSTICES FREQUENTLY CONSIDER THE PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR DECISIONS; (5) POLICY-ORIENTED, IN THE SENSE THAT JUSTICES ARE SAID TO USE THE COURT AND THE LAW AS A COVER FOR PURSUING THEIR OWN POLICY GOALS; AND (6) SYSTEMIC, IN THE SENSE THAT THE COURT'S DECISIONS FREQUENTLY HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM. THIS PAPER CONSIDERS THESE SIX NOTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF RECENT ABORTION DECISIONS.