Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision MakingOxford University Press, 2008 M08 15 - 248 páginas The U.S. Supreme Court is a public policy battleground in which organized interests attempt to etch their economic, legal, and political preferences into law through the filing of amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs. In Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making, Paul M. Collins, Jr. explores how organized interests influence the justices' decision making, including how the justices vote and whether they choose to author concurrences and dissents. Collins presents theories of judicial choice derived from disciplines as diverse as law, marketing, political science, and social psychology. This theoretically rich and empirically rigorous treatment of decision-making on the nation's highest court, which represents the most comprehensive examination ever undertaken of the influence of U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs, provides clear evidence that interest groups play a significant role in shaping the justices' choices. |
Dentro del libro
Resultados 1-5 de 13
Página 6
... area on which legal scholars would reach consensus involving pressure group activity ... areas of advance and areas of confusion, a differentiation directly ... issue areas5 or cases,6 and analyze group influence. 4 See, e.g., Harper and ...
... area on which legal scholars would reach consensus involving pressure group activity ... areas of advance and areas of confusion, a differentiation directly ... issue areas5 or cases,6 and analyze group influence. 4 See, e.g., Harper and ...
Página 7
... issue areas may select these groups and issue areas precisely because they expect to find evidence of interest group influence. As Segal and Spaeth (1993: 241) note, “Few people want to spend a year or two studying losing litigators ...
... issue areas may select these groups and issue areas precisely because they expect to find evidence of interest group influence. As Segal and Spaeth (1993: 241) note, “Few people want to spend a year or two studying losing litigators ...
Página 10
... area of confusion. Given this, it should hardly be surprising that judicial scholars have generally rejected the notion that amicus briefs influence the justices' decision making. By examining only a few groups or issue areas, a ...
... area of confusion. Given this, it should hardly be surprising that judicial scholars have generally rejected the notion that amicus briefs influence the justices' decision making. By examining only a few groups or issue areas, a ...
Página 11
... issue areas, nor do I analyze an abbreviated time frame. Instead, this book investigates the influence of amicus ... issue area (e.g., Epstein and Kobylka 1992; Samuels 2004), I believe this sacrifice is more than compensated for by the ...
... issue areas, nor do I analyze an abbreviated time frame. Instead, this book investigates the influence of amicus ... issue area (e.g., Epstein and Kobylka 1992; Samuels 2004), I believe this sacrifice is more than compensated for by the ...
Página 37
Alcanzaste el límite de visualización de este libro.
Alcanzaste el límite de visualización de este libro.
Contenido
1 | |
2 Interest Group Litigation | 17 |
3 Amicus Curiae Participation in the Supreme Court | 37 |
4 Amici Curiae and Judicial Decision Making | 75 |
5 Amici Curiae and the Consistency of Judicial Decision Making | 115 |
6 Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the Supreme Court | 139 |
7 Conclusions and Implications | 165 |
Data and Data Reliability | 187 |
References | 197 |
Table of Cases | 221 |
Index | 225 |
Otras ediciones - Ver todas
Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making Paul M. Collins, Jr. Vista previa limitada - 2008 |
Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making Paul M Collins Sin vista previa disponible - 2008 |
Términos y frases comunes
ACLU advocated Amendment American amici amicus activity amicus briefs filed amicus curiae briefs amicus filings amicus participation analysis argued arguments Association attitudinal model author or join briefs were filed Caldeira and Wright cast a liberal certiorari Collins concurring opinion confidence intervals conservative amicus briefs conservative briefs conservative position consistent example exclusionary rule federal goals heteroskedastic homoskedastic ideological direction indicates influence of amicus interest group involving issue areas join a separate judicial choice judicial decision justice’s decision Kearney and Merrill Krislov legal model legal persuasion liberal amicus briefs liberal briefs liberal conservative liberal justice liberal position liberal vote majority’s marginal effects Metromedia multinomial probit norms number of amicus organized interests perspective policy preferences political probit model respond role salience scholars Segal and Spaeth separate opinion separation of powers Solicitor special concurring statutory interpretation tion U.S. Solicitor U.S. Supreme Court voting behavior write or join