Premium
THE REHNQUIST COURT, CRIMINAL PROCESS, AND THE QUEST FOR EMERGING COALITIONS
Author(s) -
Simon Kathleen M.
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
southeastern political review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1747-1346
pISSN - 0730-2177
DOI - 10.1111/j.1747-1346.1995.tb00426.x
Subject(s) - ideology , political science , supreme court , law , politics , economic justice , criminal procedure
Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently observed that, “It is always true that when we lose a justice and get a new one, we have a new court” (Biskupic 1994a, 33). In light of the number of new justices added to the Supreme Court in the past few years, it may be futile to attempt generalizations concerning the ideological criminal procedure trends of “a” Rehnquist Court, and more informative to view the decisions from public policy and judicial behavior perspectives. Focusing on the criminal justice area, this article provides (1) a comparative overview of decisionmaking characteristics of the Burger and Rehnquist Courts, and (2) an analysis of Rehnquist Court decisions, highlighting specific substantive areas of conflict and noting emerging judicial coalitions as gleaned from close‐margin cases decided during the 1986–1993 Terms. If the labels “liberal” and “conservative” no longer have real value in describing distinct ideologies of blocs of sitting justices, then political scientists are urged to evaluate the Rehnquist Court as nine independent political actors in temporary and shifting coalitions formed in response to specific, factbound problems.