This Article is an attempt to show why the effect of ideological preferences in models of the Supreme Court's decisions works the way it does. First, I present an analysis of the expectations justices can form about the results of their decisions. Next, I suggest that for many kinds of cases the conditions for rational choice cannot be met consistently and that, as a consequence, justices use their policy preferences to reach decisions. I argue that the differential effect of attitudinal indicators in empirical studies turns on the type of decisions that are made in particular classes of Supreme Court cases. I then present an examination of Court decisions that supports this assertion. I conclude by discussing ramifications these ideas have for studies of Supreme Court decision making.
Sovereign Immunity, Anachronistic or Inherent: A Sword or a Shield?
The purpose of this Article is to give a brief history of the origin and development of the doctrine of sovereign immunity both in the common law and the civil law. After treating the doctrine's European origins, the Article will then cross the Atlantic and likewise sketch the development of the doctrine in the United States and Louisiana. After establishing this background, the doctrine and its myriad permutations can be examined as it applies to one of the greatest disasters in our country's history--Hurricane Katrina. At that point, the viability of the doctrine can be examined against the backdrop of the stark reality of the devastation and suffering wreaked upon Louisiana, caused in part by the errors and omissions of our federal government.
The Origins of Sale: Some Lessons from the Romans
The recognition of the contract of sale is rightly said to be a key achievement of the Roman jurists. In Roman law, it had three characteristics. First, a sale is entered into informally. The parties are bound without the use of any special formality such as an oath, a document, a deed, or even a handshake. Second, sale is what the Romans called a contract of good faith (bonae fidei) as distinguished from a contract of strict law (stricti iuris). The parties are bound, not only to what they said, but to all the obligations that follow as a matter of good faith. Third, a sale is binding upon consent before delivery of the goods to be sold or payment of any of the purchase price. Virtually all modern legal systems recognize a contract of sale with these three features. The Romans were the first.. . .