東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Legitimacy and Power : = Framing in U.S. Supreme Court Justices' Opinions and Off-Bench Discourse.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Legitimacy and Power :/
其他題名:	Framing in U.S. Supreme Court Justices' Opinions and Off-Bench Discourse.
作者:	Groen, Deborah Melissa.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (228 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-03, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-03A.
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30572772click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798380175418

Legitimacy and Power : = Framing in U.S. Supreme Court Justices' Opinions and Off-Bench Discourse.
Groen, Deborah Melissa.

Legitimacy and Power :Framing in U.S. Supreme Court Justices' Opinions and Off-Bench Discourse. - 1 online resource (228 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-03, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgetown University, 2023.

Includes bibliographical references

This dissertation advances research on the relationship between U.S. Supreme Court justices' concerns for the Court's legitimacy and their assertions of power in their framing of majority opinions and in their off-bench writing and speaking. Building on scholarship on power, framing, judicial decision-making and behavior, and Supreme Court legitimacy, I employ a multi-method approach that looks beyond the more common focus on justices' votes and case decisions to instead focus on how justices frame their majority opinions, interviews, speeches, and published books. In my quantitative analysis, I utilize an original dataset of 51 major First Amendment majority opinions, drawing on their corresponding 700 coded Westlaw headnotes (summaries of key facts of the opinions) to score each majority opinion on the assertiveness with which it was framed (i.e., whether it revised existing understandings of constitutional rights and censored or condemned government actions or statutes, all highly consequential determinations by the Court). I find that an increase in congressional Court curbing in the year prior to a decision being handed down relates to greater assertions of power in majority opinions. I additionally find initial indications that this relationship may be conditioned by the size of the majority coalition (with justices appearing more likely to hand down assertive opinions in response to increased Court curbing when backed by a large majority coalition). For the qualitative analysis, I reviewed 180 speeches, interviews, and books by justices, and find a complementary dynamic of justices asserting or promoting the power of the Supreme Court alongside discussions of legitimacy concerns. They did this by promoting the prestige and unique purpose of the Court, by seeking to correct misconceptions that could damage the Court's power, and by emphasizing the value and necessity of components of the Court's power. I argue that justices' decisions to assert the Court's power in the face of legitimacy concerns are rational choices for strategic justices who desire for the Court to appear strong and imperturbable at the very time when it is most valuable for the Court to be viewed in such a way-when its legitimacy status is threatened or weakened.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2023

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798380175418Subjects--Topical Terms:

528916
Political science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Judicial decision making and behaviorIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

Legitimacy and Power : = Framing in U.S. Supreme Court Justices' Opinions and Off-Bench Discourse.
LDR:03649nmm a2200385K 4500 001 2363992
005 20231127094754.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 241011s2023 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798380175418
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30572772
035 $a AAI30572772
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Groen, Deborah Melissa. $3 3704776
245 1 0 $a Legitimacy and Power : $b Framing in U.S. Supreme Court Justices' Opinions and Off-Bench Discourse.
264 0 $c 2023
300 $a 1 online resource (228 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-03, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Kapiszewski, Diana.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgetown University, 2023.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a This dissertation advances research on the relationship between U.S. Supreme Court justices' concerns for the Court's legitimacy and their assertions of power in their framing of majority opinions and in their off-bench writing and speaking. Building on scholarship on power, framing, judicial decision-making and behavior, and Supreme Court legitimacy, I employ a multi-method approach that looks beyond the more common focus on justices' votes and case decisions to instead focus on how justices frame their majority opinions, interviews, speeches, and published books. In my quantitative analysis, I utilize an original dataset of 51 major First Amendment majority opinions, drawing on their corresponding 700 coded Westlaw headnotes (summaries of key facts of the opinions) to score each majority opinion on the assertiveness with which it was framed (i.e., whether it revised existing understandings of constitutional rights and censored or condemned government actions or statutes, all highly consequential determinations by the Court). I find that an increase in congressional Court curbing in the year prior to a decision being handed down relates to greater assertions of power in majority opinions. I additionally find initial indications that this relationship may be conditioned by the size of the majority coalition (with justices appearing more likely to hand down assertive opinions in response to increased Court curbing when backed by a large majority coalition). For the qualitative analysis, I reviewed 180 speeches, interviews, and books by justices, and find a complementary dynamic of justices asserting or promoting the power of the Supreme Court alongside discussions of legitimacy concerns. They did this by promoting the prestige and unique purpose of the Court, by seeking to correct misconceptions that could damage the Court's power, and by emphasizing the value and necessity of components of the Court's power. I argue that justices' decisions to assert the Court's power in the face of legitimacy concerns are rational choices for strategic justices who desire for the Court to appear strong and imperturbable at the very time when it is most valuable for the Court to be viewed in such a way-when its legitimacy status is threatened or weakened.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2023
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Law enforcement. $3 607408
653 $a Judicial decision making and behavior
653 $a Legitimacy
653 $a Power
653 $a U.S. Supreme Court
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0206
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 783688
710 2 $a Georgetown University. $b Government. $3 1043944
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-03A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30572772 $z click for full text (PQDT)