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 25
Página xiii
... respond to any detail, no matter how mundane, relating to the publication process. I am additionally grateful to the three reviewers for providing outstanding feedback and encouragement. The creative juices need to flow beyond the ...
... respond to any detail, no matter how mundane, relating to the publication process. I am additionally grateful to the three reviewers for providing outstanding feedback and encouragement. The creative juices need to flow beyond the ...
Página 8
... respond to amicus briefs without making a direct reference to the briefs (O'Connor and Epstein 1983a; Samuels 2004). Further, Roesch, Golding, Hans, and Reppucci (1991) argue that the justices, because they are not trained in the ...
... respond to amicus briefs without making a direct reference to the briefs (O'Connor and Epstein 1983a; Samuels 2004). Further, Roesch, Golding, Hans, and Reppucci (1991) argue that the justices, because they are not trained in the ...
Página 12
... respond to persuasive communication that sometimes supports and sometimes is contrary to these goals. Because this theory is general in its nature—in the sense that it is applicable to any political actor—it will be of use not only to ...
... respond to persuasive communication that sometimes supports and sometimes is contrary to these goals. Because this theory is general in its nature—in the sense that it is applicable to any political actor—it will be of use not only to ...
Página 14
... responded to particular stimuli (Tamanaha 2006).16 Thus, for the legal realists, the scientific study of the law was a necessary condition to accurately understand the determinants of judicial decision making. Despite their commitment ...
... responded to particular stimuli (Tamanaha 2006).16 Thus, for the legal realists, the scientific study of the law was a necessary condition to accurately understand the determinants of judicial decision making. Despite their commitment ...
Página 33
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