語系:
繁體中文
English
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
The separation of powers and the Sup...
~
University of Southern California.
FindBook
Google Book
Amazon
博客來
The separation of powers and the Supreme Court: A new institutional analysis of inter-branch disputes, 1946--2005.
紀錄類型:
書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:
The separation of powers and the Supreme Court: A new institutional analysis of inter-branch disputes, 1946--2005./
作者:
Mohammad-Zadeh, Katayoun.
面頁冊數:
424 p.
附註:
Adviser: Howard Gillman.
Contained By:
Dissertation Abstracts International68-04A.
標題:
History, United States. -
電子資源:
http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3261821
The separation of powers and the Supreme Court: A new institutional analysis of inter-branch disputes, 1946--2005.
Mohammad-Zadeh, Katayoun.
The separation of powers and the Supreme Court: A new institutional analysis of inter-branch disputes, 1946--2005.
- 424 p.
Adviser: Howard Gillman.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Southern California, 2007.
Very few theories of Supreme Court decision making offer explanations of the Court's opinions in separation of powers cases. My study attempts to address this omission in the literature by using separation of powers cases to test the explanatory and predictive power of four different approaches to Supreme Court decision making: the attitudinal model, the "strategic" approach, ruling-coalition theory, and historical new institutionalism. The study hypothesizes that historical new institutionalist approaches are in the best position to explain the outcomes in these cases.Subjects--Topical Terms:
1017393
History, United States.
The separation of powers and the Supreme Court: A new institutional analysis of inter-branch disputes, 1946--2005.
LDR
:03307nam 2200301 a 45
001
856112
005
20100708
008
100708s2007 eng d
035
$a
(UMI)AAI3261821
035
$a
AAI3261821
040
$a
UMI
$c
UMI
100
1
$a
Mohammad-Zadeh, Katayoun.
$3
1022870
245
1 4
$a
The separation of powers and the Supreme Court: A new institutional analysis of inter-branch disputes, 1946--2005.
300
$a
424 p.
500
$a
Adviser: Howard Gillman.
500
$a
Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-04, Section: A, page: 1639.
502
$a
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Southern California, 2007.
520
$a
Very few theories of Supreme Court decision making offer explanations of the Court's opinions in separation of powers cases. My study attempts to address this omission in the literature by using separation of powers cases to test the explanatory and predictive power of four different approaches to Supreme Court decision making: the attitudinal model, the "strategic" approach, ruling-coalition theory, and historical new institutionalism. The study hypothesizes that historical new institutionalist approaches are in the best position to explain the outcomes in these cases.
520
$a
As a test of this hypothesis, I am analyzing all significant separation of powers cases decided by the Vinson, Warren, Burger and Rehnquist Courts. Attitudinal models fail to explain why justices of widely different ideological preferences vote along the same lines in these cases. The strategic model would predict that the justices would support those institutions that are controlled by people with attitudes that are most closely aligned with the Court majority, but this turns out not to be the case. The theory of ruling coalitions suggests that the Court's decisions will reflect the preferences of dominant ruling coalitions, but the data suggests either that this is not consistently true or that separation-of-powers cases fall outside the scope of the model because they reflect divisions among dominant coalitions.
520
$a
Instead, the preliminary results demonstrate that the justices' behavior is most consistent with that which we would expect from an historical new institutionalist analysis. There is evidence that justices form endogenous preferences based on the structure of constitutional doctrine, and that these preferences are not reducible to the sort of conventional policy preferences measured by attitudinalists. Moreover, in these cases the justices also appear to be pursuing a distinctive institutional mission related to the maintenance of judicial power and a system of checks and balances; the outcomes in these cases do not suggest that the justices are stealthily promoting conventional policy preferences. I will examine the question of whether separation of powers cases expose limits to prevailing models of judicial behavior, and also the question of what new institutionalist analysis can contribute to our understanding of Supreme Court politics.
590
$a
School code: 0208.
650
4
$a
History, United States.
$3
1017393
650
4
$a
Law.
$3
600858
650
4
$a
Political Science, General.
$3
1017391
690
$a
0337
690
$a
0398
690
$a
0615
710
2 0
$a
University of Southern California.
$3
700129
773
0
$t
Dissertation Abstracts International
$g
68-04A.
790
$a
0208
790
1 0
$a
Gillman, Howard,
$e
advisor
791
$a
Ph.D.
792
$a
2007
856
4 0
$u
http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3261821
筆 0 讀者評論
館藏地:
全部
電子資源
出版年:
卷號:
館藏
1 筆 • 頁數 1 •
1
條碼號
典藏地名稱
館藏流通類別
資料類型
索書號
使用類型
借閱狀態
預約狀態
備註欄
附件
W9071447
電子資源
11.線上閱覽_V
電子書
EB W9071447
一般使用(Normal)
在架
0
1 筆 • 頁數 1 •
1
多媒體
評論
新增評論
分享你的心得
Export
取書館
處理中
...
變更密碼
登入