Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

30 results

Page 1 of 2

  • Frank Bourgin

  • C. Herman Pritchett
  • Journal:
    PS: Political Science & Politics / Volume 24 / Issue 2 / June 1991
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 September 2013, p. 252
    Print publication:
    June 1991
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Russell Humke Fitzgibbon

  • Dean E. McHenry, C. Herman Pritchett, Henry A. Turner
  • Journal:
    PS: Political Science & Politics / Volume 12 / Issue 2 / Spring 1979
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    28 November 2022, p. 277
    Print publication:
    Spring 1979
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Jerome G. Kerwin

  • C. Herman Pritchett
  • Journal:
    PS: Political Science & Politics / Volume 11 / Issue 1 / Winter 1978
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    28 November 2022, pp. 112-113
    Print publication:
    Winter 1978
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • William Ebenstein

  • Gordon E. Baker, C. Herman Pritchett, Henry A. Turner, John E. Moore
  • Journal:
    PS: Political Science & Politics / Volume 9 / Issue 4 / Fall 1976
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    28 November 2022, pp. 483-484
    Print publication:
    Fall 1976
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Equal Protection and the Urban Majority*

  • C. Herman Pritchett
  • Journal:
    American Political Science Review / Volume 58 / Issue 4 / December 1964
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 September 2013, pp. 869-875
    Print publication:
    December 1964

  • This year marks the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. On May 17, 1954, nine judges, sworn to defend a Constitution which guarantees equal protection of the laws, speaking for a country which declared its independence on the proposition that all men are created equal and which is fighting for moral leadership in a world predominantly populated by people whose skin color is other than white—these nine men unanimously concluded that segregated educational facilities are “inherently unequal.”

    Most of the members of this audience can probably still recall their feelings when they heard what the Supreme Court had done. Even those who were in full sympathy with the holding must nevertheless have been awed by the responsibility the Supreme Court had undertaken and shaken by some doubts whether the judicial institution could engage in a controversy so charged with emotion and bitterness without running the risk of political defeat and possible permanent impairment of judicial power.

  • Libertarian Motivations on the Vinson Court

  • C. Herman Pritchett
  • Journal:
    American Political Science Review / Volume 47 / Issue 2 / June 1953
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 September 2013, pp. 321-336
    Print publication:
    June 1953

  • Justice Frankfurter is fond of quoting an old English saying that “the devil himself knoweth not the mind of men.” The mind of a man who happens to be a judge is the center of many contending impulses when he is making it up, and an external reconstruction of the process is quite impossible. However, the rules of the game require that judges supply clues to their thought processes in the form of written opinions. In every major case decided by the Supreme Court, one or more of its members provide a written justification for the decision announced. The individualistic tradition of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, moreover, permits justices who do not agree with the views of their brethren to say so, and to give their reasons for dissenting. Thus the Supreme Court on decision day takes on the aspect of a small legislature in which votes are cast pro and con on significant issues of public policy, with accompanying explanations much more coherent and systematic and better-reasoned than are customarily available in explanation of votes cast, say, in the United States Senate.

    While it has not been usual to do so, these judicial votes can be subjected to the same kinds of analysis as have been traditionally employed for the study of legislative voting behavior.

Page 1 of 2