Suchergebnisse

ORGANIZED RELIGION HAS PLAYED AN INCREASINGLY PROMINENT ROLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES. ONE ASPECT OF THIS IS THE ROLE OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AS PARTIES IN CHURCH-STATE CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. ALTHOUGH RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BECOME MORE ACTIVE IN LOBBYING CONGRESS, LITIGATION REMAINS AN IMPORTANT WEAPON IN THEIR POLITICAL ARSENAL.

Although litigants invest a huge amount of resources in crafting legal briefs for submission to the Supreme Court, few studies examine whether and how briefs influence Court decisions. This article asks whether legal participants are strategic when deciding how to frame a case brief and whether such frames influence the likelihood of receiving a favorable outcome. To explore these questions, a theory of strategic framing is developed and litigants' basic framing strategies are hypothesized based on Riker's theory of rhetoric and heresthetic as well as the strategic approach to judicial politics. Using 110 salient cases from the 1979–89 terms, I propose and develop a measure of a typology of issue frames and provide empirical evidence that supports a strategic account of how parties frame cases.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction: A Bind of Their Own Making -- PART ONE -- 1 Telling Stories -- 2 The Rhetoric of Reputation -- 3 Advocacy -- PART TWO -- 4 Your Word Is your Bond -- 5 The Sanctity of Property -- 6 Subjects of Selfhood -- 7 For Family and Property -- Afterword: From Property to Plessy -- Appendix: Researching Black Litigants -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W.