Advanced search options

Advanced Search Options 🞨

Browse by author name (“Author name starts with…”).

Find ETDs with:

in
/  
in
/  
in
/  
in

Written in Published in Earliest date Latest date

Sorted by

Results per page:

Sorted by: relevance · author · university · dateNew search

Language: English

You searched for subject:(us supreme court). Showing records 1 – 3 of 3 total matches.

Search Limiters

Last 2 Years | English Only

No search limiters apply to these results.

▼ Search Limiters


Texas A&M University

1. Craig, Mckinzie. Legal Doctrine and Self Imposed Norms: Examining the Politics of Stare Decisis.

Degree: 2012, Texas A&M University

The "law versus politics" debate is central in the study of the Supreme Court's institutional role in US democracy and law making. Research has sought to determine if the Supreme Court is an unconstrained political actor or if it is constrained by precedent. This dissertation contributes to this debate by theorizing that there is not a direct tradeoff; instead, even a politically motivated Court can be constrained by precedent. Given precedent is an internally imposed norm, what incentive does a politically motivated Supreme Court have to adhere to precedent when it results in outcomes that deviate from the Court's most preferred ideological outcome? There has been a lack of theoretical development and empirical testing that would explain the Court's incentive to adhere to precedent. I argue that even a politically motivated Supreme Court has an interest in adhering to precedent as a means of control over the lower courts. The Court has a role as a principal with the Courts of Appeals acting as an agent. The Supreme Court uses precedent as a standard that guides lower court decision-making in thousands of cases that the Court will never hear. The Supreme Court is willing to sacrifice the dispositional outcome (who wins and who loses) in a given case to issue or adhere to a precedent that will better guide lower court decision-making in a given area. To test this theory, this project will construct an original data set using a new measure of precedent. Specifically, "the law" and "precedent" for a case will be coded in terms of the standard of review. The standard of review can be understood as a precise legal statement of which party has the burden of proof or justification in a given case and the nature of that burden. This is an ordinal measure (coded 0-4) based on the Court's finite legal rules in a given area of law (rational basis, heightened rational basis, intermediate, heightened intermediate and strict). This novel understanding better captures the legal content of court opinions. Advisors/Committee Members: Rogers, James R. (advisor), Flemming, Roy B. (committee member), Ura, Joseph D. (committee member), Vedlitz, Arnold (committee member).

Subjects/Keywords: judicial politics; stare decisis; gender equal protection; us supreme court

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Craig, M. (2012). Legal Doctrine and Self Imposed Norms: Examining the Politics of Stare Decisis. (Thesis). Texas A&M University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2012-08-11588

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Craig, Mckinzie. “Legal Doctrine and Self Imposed Norms: Examining the Politics of Stare Decisis.” 2012. Thesis, Texas A&M University. Accessed August 03, 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2012-08-11588.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Craig, Mckinzie. “Legal Doctrine and Self Imposed Norms: Examining the Politics of Stare Decisis.” 2012. Web. 03 Aug 2020.

Vancouver:

Craig M. Legal Doctrine and Self Imposed Norms: Examining the Politics of Stare Decisis. [Internet] [Thesis]. Texas A&M University; 2012. [cited 2020 Aug 03]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2012-08-11588.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Council of Science Editors:

Craig M. Legal Doctrine and Self Imposed Norms: Examining the Politics of Stare Decisis. [Thesis]. Texas A&M University; 2012. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2012-08-11588

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

2. Bundzen, Anna. The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice : A Comparative Study of Compliance.

Degree: Psychology and Social Work, 2011, Örebro University

This paper comparatively compares compliance to the rulings of the United States Supreme Court and the ECJ by the state/member state courts. Besides comparing the compliance to the two courts judgements, the paper also tries to establish how to increase compliance with these rulings in the future. This is done because compliance is an important aspect of a functioning judicial system, and a comparison might reveal solutions from one side that could be utilized on the other. The main resources used in this book are: articles, books, webpages and statistics on the subject. The main focus lies on the legal approach, but as a comparative study, elements of political science have been used as well. The results of the comparison show that although statistical compliance is quite high, the actual compliance might be lower due to lack of knowledge or political divisions. Increasing the actual compliance is then a good strategy to be sure that lower courts follow the rulings correctly. The conclusion of this paper is that political and policy divisions in a country, or between an organization and its members results in non- compliance. Reducing this kind of friction will help increase compliance to decisions, not only statistically but also in practice, as the lower courts will feel more comfortable with the rulings. An increase of knowledge of the subject, and the development of efficient judicial mechanisms in a state will also help assure correct interpretation of the rulings.

Subjects/Keywords: supreme; court; us; ecj; european; court of justice; comparative; study; compliance; lower; courts; Law; Juridik

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Bundzen, A. (2011). The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice : A Comparative Study of Compliance. (Thesis). Örebro University. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-20655

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Bundzen, Anna. “The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice : A Comparative Study of Compliance.” 2011. Thesis, Örebro University. Accessed August 03, 2020. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-20655.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Bundzen, Anna. “The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice : A Comparative Study of Compliance.” 2011. Web. 03 Aug 2020.

Vancouver:

Bundzen A. The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice : A Comparative Study of Compliance. [Internet] [Thesis]. Örebro University; 2011. [cited 2020 Aug 03]. Available from: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-20655.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Council of Science Editors:

Bundzen A. The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice : A Comparative Study of Compliance. [Thesis]. Örebro University; 2011. Available from: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-20655

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

3. Winters, Kathleen H. Motivations for the Use of Concurring Opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Degree: PhD, Political Science, 2011, The Ohio State University

While some behavior on the United States Supreme Court is formally required, other choices are wholly up to the discretion of each individual justice. One such discretional choice is the choice to author a concurring opinion, which agrees with the outcome of a case but add to, subtract from, or emphasize a point within the legal doctrine provided by the majority opinion. Thus, choices about concurring opinions provide a valuable opportunity for examining judicial motivations. This dissertation examines justices’ motives for both whether and when they circulate a concurrence to their colleagues, as well as whether they choose to publish it along with the Court’s opinion. The hypotheses are derived from two types of motivations – individual and collective. Tests of these hypotheses were conducted using data from the 1970 through 1979 Court terms, collected primarily from the personal papers of Justices Harry Blackmun and William Brennan. I use a split population event history model to test hypotheses about whether and when a justice first circulates a concurring opinion. I then use a logistic regression model to test hypotheses about whether a justice chooses to withdraw a written concurrence; this analysis is, of course, dependent upon the justice already having written a concurring opinion. In both sets of analyses I find that Supreme Court justices are motivated not only by their individual preferences about legal policy, but also by individual non-policy preferences, such as workload, and collective preferences about the institutional status of the Court, such as maintaining the Court’s legitimacy. Advisors/Committee Members: Baum, Lawrence (Committee Chair).

Subjects/Keywords: Political Science; US Supreme Court; judicial decision-making

…219 xiii Chapter 1: Introduction On March 25, 1980, the Supreme Court announced its… …of cases brought before the Supreme Court, the justices unanimously decided against… …Supreme Court justices to make the choices they do? Unlike elected officials, Supreme 3 Court… …act, as they are appointed to life terms. Instead, the primary motivation of Supreme Court… …that Supreme Court justices can unilaterally affect legal policy; instead, Supreme Court… 

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Winters, K. H. (2011). Motivations for the Use of Concurring Opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Doctoral Dissertation). The Ohio State University. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1306777128

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Winters, Kathleen H. “Motivations for the Use of Concurring Opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court.” 2011. Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University. Accessed August 03, 2020. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1306777128.

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Winters, Kathleen H. “Motivations for the Use of Concurring Opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court.” 2011. Web. 03 Aug 2020.

Vancouver:

Winters KH. Motivations for the Use of Concurring Opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court. [Internet] [Doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University; 2011. [cited 2020 Aug 03]. Available from: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1306777128.

Council of Science Editors:

Winters KH. Motivations for the Use of Concurring Opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court. [Doctoral Dissertation]. The Ohio State University; 2011. Available from: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1306777128

.