Suchergebnisse
Filter
82 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Overruled?: Legislative Overrides, Pluralism, and Contemporary Court–Congress Relations
In: Perspectives on politics, Band 2, Heft 4, S. 834-835
ISSN: 1541-0986
Overruled? Legislative Overrides, Pluralism, and Contemporary Court-Congress Relations
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 2, Heft 4, S. 834-835
ISSN: 1537-5927
Book Reviews: American Politics: Jeb Barnes, Overruled?: Legislative Overrides, Pluralism, and Contemporary Court-Congress Relations
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 2, Heft 4, S. 834
ISSN: 1537-5927
Maintaining Congressional Committees: Sources of Member Support
In: Legislative studies quarterly, Band 23, Heft 2, S. 197
ISSN: 1939-9162
Maintaining Congressional Committees: Sources of Member Support
In: Legislative studies quarterly, Band 23, Heft 2, S. 197-218
ISSN: 0362-9805
Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice and Public Policy, by Bryan D. Jones
In: Political science quarterly: a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study and analysis of government, politics and international affairs ; PSQ, Band 110, Heft 3, S. 463-465
ISSN: 1538-165X
Meeting Competing Demands: Committee Performance in the Postreform House
In: American journal of political science, Band 39, Heft 3, S. 653
ISSN: 1540-5907
Meeting Competing Demands: Committee Performance in the Post-Reform House
In: American journal of political science: AJPS, Band 39, Heft 3, S. 653-682
ISSN: 0092-5853
Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice and Public Policy
In: Political science quarterly: PSQ ; the journal public and international affairs, Band 110, Heft 3, S. 463-464
ISSN: 0032-3195
The constrained court: law, politics, and the decisions justices make
How do Supreme Court justices decide their cases? Do they follow their policy preferences? Or are they constrained by the law and by other political actors? The Constrained Court combines new theoretical insights and extensive data analysis to show that law and politics together shape the behavior of justices on the Supreme Court. Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman show how two types of constraints have influenced the decision making of the modern Court. First, Bailey and Maltzman document that important legal doctrines, such as respect for precedents, have influenced every justice since 1950.
Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court
In: American political science review, Band 102, Heft 3, S. 369-384
ISSN: 1537-5943
Judicial scholars often struggle to disentangle the effects of law and policy preferences on U.S. Supreme Court decision making. We employ a new approach to measuring the effect—if any—of the law on justices' decisions. We use positions taken on Supreme Court cases by members of Congress and presidents to identify policy components of voting. Doing so enables us to isolate the effects of three legal doctrines: adherence to precedent, judicial restraint, and a strict interpretation of the First Amendment's protection of speech clause. We find considerable evidence that legal factors play an important role in Supreme Court decision making. We also find that the effect of legal factors varies across justices.
Does legal doctrine matter?: Unpacking law and policy preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court
In: American political science review, Band 102, Heft 3, S. 369-384
ISSN: 0003-0554
World Affairs Online
Change, Continuity, and the Evolution of the Law
In: American journal of political science: AJPS, Band 52, Heft 2, S. 252-267
ISSN: 0092-5853