Constitutional Review and the Selective Promotion of Case Results
In: American journal of political science: AJPS, Band 50, Heft 1, S. 98-112
ISSN: 0092-5853
16 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: American journal of political science: AJPS, Band 50, Heft 1, S. 98-112
ISSN: 0092-5853
In: American journal of political science, Band 50, Heft 1, S. 98-112
ISSN: 1540-5907
A significant majority of the world's constitutional courts publicize their decisions through direct contact with the national media. This interest in public information is puzzling in so far as constitutional judges are not directly accountable to voters. I argue that the promotion of case results is consistent with a theory of judicial behavior in which public support for courts can undermine incentives for insincere decision making. In this article, I develop a simple game theory model that identifies how case promotion is linked to judicial choice. Results of a simultaneous equations model estimating the Mexican Supreme Court's merits decisions and its choices to publicize those decisions by issuing press releases to national media outlets support an account of constitutional review in which judges believe they can influence their authority through case promotion.
In: Comparative political studies: CPS, Band 38, Heft 9, S. 1159-1162
ISSN: 1552-3829
In: Comparative political studies: CPS, Band 38, Heft 9, S. 1159-1161
ISSN: 0010-4140
In: Comparative political studies: CPS, Band 38, Heft 9, S. 1159-1162
ISSN: 0010-4140
In: Comparative politics, Band 37, Heft 1, S. 41
ISSN: 2151-6227
In: Comparative politics, Band 37, Heft 1, S. 41-60
ISSN: 0010-4159
World Affairs Online
Recent theory in judicial politics suggests that a normative public commitment to a state's high court can undermine political constraints on judging induced by the separation-of-powers system. If public support affects judicial authority in this way, judges ought to care about influencing the information to which citizens have access, especially when they substitute their preferences for those of elected officials by invalidating public policies. This study attempts to simultaneously explain the Mexican Supreme Court's merits decisions in constitutional cases and its choices to issue press releases summarizing those decisions for members of the national media. Using original data on the Supreme Court's constitutional resolutions, I find that the Court was significantly more likely to publicize decisions striking down public policies than those upholding them. I also find that that the Court was most likely to publicize resolutions striking down important federal policies, the policies the Court was least likely to invalidate.
BASE
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 69, Heft 2, S. 470-482
ISSN: 1468-2508
SSRN
Working paper
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 69, Heft 2, S. 470-482
ISSN: 0022-3816
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 68, Heft 1, S. 180-193
ISSN: 1468-2508