Leseprobe
* Affiliatelinks/Werbelinks
Links auf reinlesen.de sind sogenannte Affiliate-Links. Wenn du auf so einen Affiliate-Link klickst und über diesen Link einkaufst, bekommt reinlesen.de von dem betreffenden Online-Shop oder Anbieter eine Provision. Für dich verändert sich der Preis nicht.
The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court
James F. Spriggs, Thomas G. Hansford
* Affiliatelinks/Werbelinks
Links auf reinlesen.de sind sogenannte Affiliate-Links. Wenn du auf so einen Affiliate-Link klickst und über diesen Link einkaufst, bekommt reinlesen.de von dem betreffenden Online-Shop oder Anbieter eine Provision. Für dich verändert sich der Preis nicht.
Sozialwissenschaften, Recht, Wirtschaft / Recht
Beschreibung
The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court offers an insightful and provocative analysis of the Supreme Court's most important task--shaping the law. Thomas Hansford and James Spriggs analyze a key aspect of legal change: the Court's interpretation or treatment of the precedents it has set in the past. Court decisions do not just resolve immediate disputes; they also set broader precedent. The meaning and scope of a precedent, however, can change significantly as the Court revisits it in future cases. The authors contend that these interpretations are driven by an interaction between policy goals and variations in the legal authoritativeness of precedent. From this premise, they build an explanation of the legal interpretation of precedent that yields novel predictions about the nature and timing of legal change.
Hansford and Spriggs test their hypotheses by examining how the Court has interpreted the precedents it set between 1946 and 1999. This analysis provides compelling support for their argument, and demonstrates that the justices' ideological goals and the role of precedent are inextricably linked. The two prevailing, yet contradictory, views of precedent--that it acts either solely as a constraint, or as a "cloak" that never actually influences the Court--are incorrect. This book shows that while precedent can operate as a constraint on the justices' decisions, it also represents an opportunity to foster preferred societal outcomes.
Kundenbewertungen
Federal judge, Miranda v. Arizona, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Rehnquist Court, Decision-making, The Concept of Law, United States courts of appeals, Due process, Legal realism, Amicus curiae, Statutory interpretation, Patent, Lawsuit, Mathews v. Eldridge, Indictment, Post hoc analysis, Treaty, Anders v. California, Precedent, Prosecutor, Distinguishing, Supreme Court of the United States, Injunction, Jurist, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Legal opinion, Critical legal studies, Illinois v. Gates, Court, Federal Judicial Center, Aguilar v. Texas, Memorandum opinion, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Gitlow v. New York, Legal doctrine, State court (United States), United States Reports, Federal common law, Political climate, Rational choice theory, United States Court of Federal Claims, Standing (law), Bush v. Vera, Deem (law), Judicial discretion, Original intent, Chi-squared test, Case citation, Payne v. Tennessee, Freedom of speech, State supreme court, Court order, Criminal procedure, Endogeneity (econometrics), Grutter v. Bollinger, Public policy, United States federal judge, Appellate court, Rule of law, Shepard's Citations, Federal Court (Canada), Erie doctrine, United States v. Morrison, Judicial interpretation, Allegation, Legislation, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Judiciary, Counsel, Judge