Network Derived Domain Maps of the United States Supreme Court: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Network Derived Domain Maps of the United States Supreme Court: PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 754c9-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Network Derived Domain Maps of the United States Supreme Court:

Description:

Network Derived Domain Maps of the United States Supreme Court: – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:26
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 38
Provided by: pah7
Learn more at: http://www.nd.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Network Derived Domain Maps of the United States Supreme Court:


1
Network Derived Domain Maps of the United States
Supreme Court
50 years of Co-Voting Data and a Case Study on
Abortion
Peter A. Hook, J.D., M.S.L.I.S. Electronic
Services Librarian, Indiana University School of
Law--Bloomington http//ella.slis.indiana.edu/pah
ook May 22, 2007, NetSci 07 New York Hall of
Science, Queens, NYC
SLIS
2
Harvard Law Review Supreme Court Statistics
July 2, 2005 New York Times
3
Ideological Landscape of the Justices (1994
2003)
Appointed by a Democrat
Appointed by a Republican
Voting frequencies represented as the edge weight
between nodes and presented visually as a graph.
(Rendered with Pajek using a stochastic, spring
force algorithm.)
4
Voting Together gt 50 (Non-Unanimous Cases 1994
-2003 Supreme Court Terms)
Voting Together gt 49 (Non-Unanimous Cases 1994
-2003 Supreme Court Terms)
5
1994-2003 Non-Unanimous Cases (MDS using R)
6
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956
2005 Terms)
7
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956
2005 Terms)
10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms)
Justice 1 Justice 2 Cases Together
OConnor Roberts 91 23
Warren Marshall 88 178
Reed Clark 85 40
Fortas Marshall 85 132
Warren Brennan 82 1406
Scalia Roberts 82 78
Roberts Alito 82 39
Warren Fortas 80 391
Kennedy Roberts 79 78
Brennan Fortas 79 394
91
8
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956
2005 Terms)
88
10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms)
Justice 1 Justice 2 Cases Together
OConnor Roberts 91 23
Warren Marshall 88 178
Reed Clark 85 40
Fortas Marshall 85 132
Warren Brennan 82 1406
Scalia Roberts 82 78
Roberts Alito 82 39
Warren Fortas 80 391
Kennedy Roberts 79 78
Brennan Fortas 79 394
9
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956
2005 Terms)
28
12 Lowest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 12 Lowest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 12 Lowest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 12 Lowest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms)
Justice 1 Justice 2 Cases
Douglas Rehnquist 28 513
Douglas Burger 35 792
Douglas Blackmun 36 695
Douglas Powell 37 495
Frankfurter Douglas 38 588
Douglas Harlan II 39 1633
Marshall Rehnquist 41 2819
Douglas Burton 41 231
Black Harlan II 41 1628
Blackmun Thomas 42 284
Brennan Rehnquist 42 2706
Douglas Whittaker 42 523
10
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956
2005 Terms)
12 Lowest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 12 Lowest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 12 Lowest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms) 12 Lowest Cumulative Voting Percentages (1956 2005 Terms)
Justice 1 Justice 2 Cases
Douglas Rehnquist 28 513
Douglas Burger 35 792
Douglas Blackmun 36 695
Douglas Powell 37 495
Frankfurter Douglas 38 588
Douglas Harlan II 39 1633
Marshall Rehnquist 41 2819
Douglas Burton 41 231
Black Harlan II 41 1628
Blackmun Thomas 42 284
Brennan Rehnquist 42 2706
Douglas Whittaker 42 523
8 of the 12 Lowest Co-Voting Percentages are with
Douglas!
11
(No Transcript)
12
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956
2005 Terms)
Rehnquist Court 6 (Aug. 3, 1994
to Sept. 28, 2005)
  • Significant Cases Rehnquist Court 6
  • U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton no state term
    limits for Congresspersons
  • Clinton v. Jones President can be sued while
    in office
  • Boy Scouts of America v. Dale private
    organization can prohibit homosexuals
  • Bush v. Gore Florida recount must stop
  • Lawrence v. Texas sodomy laws unconstitutional
  • Atkins v. Virginia cannot execute mentally
    retarded criminals
  • Grutter v. Bollinger narrowly tailored
    affirmative action is permissible
  • Hamdi v. Rumsfeld enemy combatants have right
    to neutral decisionmaker
  • Kelo v. City of New London state can take
    private property for commercial development

(6th different composition of nine Justices
during the tenure of Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist.)
13
Relational Infrastructure of the Law (Topic
Assignment)
14
26 Abortion and Birth Control Cases in the S.Ct.
1965
1973
1971
1972
1975
1976
1977
1979
1979
1980
1981
1983
1986
1988
1989
1990
1992
1997
2000
2006
2007
Birth Control
Timeline Layout
Abortion
Timeline Layout with Citation Inter-linkages
15
(No Transcript)
16
Relational Infrastructure of the Law (Depth of
Treatment)
17
West Depth of Treatment
Examined
Discussed
Cited
Mentioned
18
West Depth of Treatment
Examined
Discussed
Cited
19
West Depth of Treatment
Examined
Discussed
20
West Depth of Treatment
Examined
21
West Depth of Treatment
Quoting

22
Opinions that Quote from Roe v. Wade
West Depth of Treatment
Quoting

23
Relational Infrastructure of the Law (Case Status)
24
West Depth of Treatment
Examined
Discussed
Cited
Mentioned
25
West Status Flags
at least one point is no longer good law
at least one point has negative treatment
case has some history
case has been cited
26
22. Planned Parenthood of SE Penn. v. Casey, 492
U.S. 490 (June 29, 1992)
vs.
Informed consent provisions of Pennsylvania's
abortion statute that require giving of truthful,
nonmisleading information about nature of
abortion procedure, about attendant health risks
of abortion and of childbirth, and about probable
gestational age of fetus do not impose undue
burden on woman's right to choose to terminate
her pregnancy.
West Publishing
27
(No Transcript)
28
1. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (June
07, 1965)
vs.
The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.
West Publishing
Connecticut law forbidding use of contraceptives unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy.
West Publishing
29
3. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (March 22,
1972)
vs.
Took No Part
Dissent
Main Opinion
Massachusetts statute permitting married persons to obtain contraceptives to prevent pregnancy but prohibiting distribution of contraceptives to single persons for that purpose violates equal protection clause.
Concurrence
Concurrence
West Publishing
Under right of privacy, individual, married or single, has right to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as decision whether to bear or beget a child.
West Publishing
30
4. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (Jan. 22, 1973)
5. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (Jan. 22, 1973)
31
Concurrence
Concurrence
Dissent
Concurrence
Dissent
Dissent
Main Opinions
7
2
32
5. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (Jan. 22, 1973)
Prior to approximately the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, the attending physician in consultation with his patient is free to determine, without regulation by state, that in his medical judgment the patient's pregnancy should be terminated, and if that decision is reached such judgment may be effectuated by an abortion without interference by the state.
4k106 Fetal Age and Viability Trimester
From and after approximately the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, a state may regulate abortion procedure to extent that the regulation reasonably relates to preservation and protection of maternal health.
If state is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period except when necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother.
West Publishing
33
19. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492
U.S. 490 (July 03, 1989)
vs.
State's interest in protecting potential human life does not come into existence only at point of viability and thus, there should not be rigid line allowing state regulation of abortion after viability but prohibiting regulation before viability. (Per Chief Justice with two Justices concurring.).
Today, Roe v. Wade, and the fundamental
constitutional right of women to decide whether
to terminate a pregnancy, survive but are not
secure.
I fear for the future. I fear for the liberty
and equality of the millions of women who have
lived and come of age in the 16 years since Roe
was decided. I fear for the integrity of, and
public esteem for, this Court.
34
22. Planned Parenthood of SE Penn. v. Casey, 492
U.S. 490 (June 29, 1992)
vs.
Reliance on Roe v. Wade rule's limitation on state power required reaffirmance of Roe's essential holding under doctrine of stare decisis for two decades of economic and social developments, people organized intimate relationships and made choices that defined their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on availability of abortion in event of contraceptive failure.
West Publishing
35
1970 Term Blackmun / Burger First Together
36
1985 Term Their Last Together
37
THE END
About PowerShow.com