Suchergebnisse

This article argues that the threat of review and reversal by supervising courts affects circuit court judges differently in disputes focusing on law compared to disputes focusing on facts. Because fact-bound cases are less likely to be reviewed than law-bound cases, lower court judges are freer to indulge their policy preferences in fact-bound cases. I test this argument using computer-assisted content analysis to measure the extent to which legal disputes are based on interpretations of facts and interpretations of relevant legal standards, respectively. The results of this content analysis are then used as independent variables in a model predicting the outcomes of legal challenges to the actions of administrative agencies. The results indicate that highly fact-bound decisions amplify the effects of judicial ideology while highly law-bound decisions constrain the effects of ideology.

Citizen suit provisions, which give proregulatory interests access to the federal courts, can be used by Congress to increase the courts' role in regulatory policy. I analyze 284 environmental regulation bills reported favorably out of committee and show that committee support for citizen suits is a function of the committee's policy goals and the political context in which the bills are generated. These findings indicate that Congress deliberately uses judicial procedures as instruments of political control and that scholars examining judicial policymaking must include legislative goals in the list of explanatory factors.

ObjectivesIn this article we examine President Barack Obama's leadership on the issue of poverty. Our analysis seeks to address three specific objectives. First, we begin by examining the Obama administration's anti‐poverty efforts and their relationship with recent trends in the U.S. poverty rate. Second, we examine President Obama's rhetorical leadership on the issue of poverty, both in absolute terms and compared to other recent presidents. Compared to other recent presidents, how often has Obama talked about issues related to poverty and poor people? Third, we discuss the implications of our results for theories of presidential leadership.MethodsWe rely on a series of analyses of aggregate poverty trends, as well as content analyses of presidential weekly radio addresses.ResultsOur analyses find that contrary to the claims of critics, although the poverty rate has risen during President Obama's first term in office, recent increases in poverty have actually been somewhat lower that what would be expected given the state of the economy. The evidence indicates that one important reason for this is the implementation of ARRA. We find considerable support for claims that President Obama has demonstrated relatively little rhetorical leadership on the issue of poverty, although the frequency with which he has emphasized issues related to poverty is not significantly different compared to past presidents.ConclusionPresident Obama has had some objective success in his anti‐poverty efforts, but his leadership style on this issue can be characterized more as a "facilitator" rather than a "director" of change.

In this article we evaluate whether the Supreme Court's much‐discussed decision in Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) signaled a lasting difference in how the justices decide administrative law cases, by comparing and testing the predictions of three distinct theories of Supreme Court behavior. The legal model predicts an increase in deference to administrative agencies. This prediction is shared by the jurisprudential regime model, which also predicts that the justices evaluate key case factors differently before and after Chevron. The attitudinal model predicts no change in the justices' behavior as a result of Chevron. Although we find that attitudes matter, the fact that we also find support for the legal and jurisprudential regime models undermines the assertion of the attitudinal model that law cannot explain Supreme Court votes on the merits.