{"has_more":false,"total_items":4,"items":[{"vg_id":0,"journal":"the Innovation Act of 2013, which was passed by the House of Representatives","volume":3309,"title":"The Senate Judiciary Committee did not act on this measure. 60 In 1993, changes to the rules to adopt initial disclosure requirements produced dissents by Supreme Court Justices, and Congress almost deleted some amendments from the package. But the unanimous consent necessary for Congressional action could not be mustered because one Senator refused to go along","authors":[{"author_name":"H R See"}]},{"vg_id":0,"published_date":1997,"journal":"Ariz. L. Rev","volume":461,"title":"The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Tort Settlements Negotiated Under Federal Rule 23","authors":[{"author_name":"Derek P Carrington"},{"author_name":" Apanovitch"}]},{"vg_id":0,"published_date":"2014-06-27","journal":"It bears noting that some see unusual unanimity in our Supreme Court's recent Term. Neal K. Katyal, Lawvs. Politics on the Court, N.Y. Times","title":"reported that the Court decided unanimously in more than 66 % of its cases during the 2013-14 Term. The last time it had such frequent unanimity was in 1940. He asserted that \"[t]he justices' ability to cross partisan divides and find common ground in their bottom-line judgement in roughly twOthirds of their cases \" 'i-'i-should remind us that even in this hyperpartisan age there is a difference between law and politics"},{"vg_id":0,"journal":"See supra note 1 and accompanying text"}]}