Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté

Attention, ce site est en cours de développement !
Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts.
Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment

Identifieur interne : 004E95 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 004E94; suivant : 004E96

Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment

Auteurs : Sarah Staszak [États-Unis]

Source :

RBID : ISTEX:D703A5970E35E568FF122F7679EF5CC5AFBD8B68

Abstract

This article examines the efforts of political and legal actors to scale back access to the courts and judicial authority in the decades since the rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s.  Despite the importance and consequences that such efforts have had for the judicial system and rights protections in the United States, public law and American Political Development (APD) scholars have only begun to study this phenomenon within existing theories of institutional change.  Through an examination of efforts to reform procedural rules that govern courtroom access, adjudication, and potential remedies, this article presents evidence that both builds on and pushes this scholarship in new directions.  In contrast to law and APD scholars who have promoted a ‘regime politics’ model of judicial authority that focuses on the interests of national elected officials and Supreme Court majorities, this article finds that actors pursuing retrenchment come from both within and outside the judiciary, evidencing a robust set of individuals and interests (far beyond judges and politicians) who might be considered “judicial” actors.  Building on and complicating current understandings of the politics of retrenchment, moreover, I find that the groups involved in judicial retrenchment change significantly over time, are motivated by more than partisan backlash, and that the availability of malleable institutional “rules” enhances the likelihood of their success.  Finally, I find that the processes of judicial retrenchment are distinctive but not static, unfolding in a series of methods for attempted change that are not only path dependent, but also path breaking.

Url:
DOI: 10.1017/S0898588X10000040


Affiliations:


Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)


Le document en format XML

<record>
<TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Staszak, Sarah" sort="Staszak, Sarah" uniqKey="Staszak S" first="Sarah" last="Staszak">Sarah Staszak</name>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:D703A5970E35E568FF122F7679EF5CC5AFBD8B68</idno>
<date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1017/S0898588X10000040</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/D703A5970E35E568FF122F7679EF5CC5AFBD8B68/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">006A65</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">006A65</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">006A65</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">001997</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">001997</idno>
<idno type="wicri:doubleKey">0898-588X:2010:Staszak S:institutions:rulemaking:and</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">004F36</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">004E95</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">004E95</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<title level="a">Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Staszak, Sarah" sort="Staszak, Sarah" uniqKey="Staszak S" first="Sarah" last="Staszak">Sarah Staszak</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="4">
<country>États-Unis</country>
<placeName>
<settlement type="city">Princeton (New Jersey)</settlement>
<region type="state">New Jersey</region>
</placeName>
<orgName type="university">Université de Princeton</orgName>
</affiliation>
<affiliation wicri:level="1">
<country wicri:rule="url">États-Unis</country>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series>
<title level="j">Studies in American Political Development</title>
<title level="j" type="abbrev">Stud. Am. Pol. Dev.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0898-588X</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1469-8692</idno>
<imprint>
<publisher>Cambridge University Press</publisher>
<pubPlace>New York, USA</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2010-10">2010-10</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">24</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="168">168</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="189">189</biblScope>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">0898-588X</idno>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt>
<idno type="ISSN">0898-588X</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<textClass></textClass>
<langUsage>
<language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front>
<div type="abstract">This article examines the efforts of political and legal actors to scale back access to the courts and judicial authority in the decades since the rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s.  Despite the importance and consequences that such efforts have had for the judicial system and rights protections in the United States, public law and American Political Development (APD) scholars have only begun to study this phenomenon within existing theories of institutional change.  Through an examination of efforts to reform procedural rules that govern courtroom access, adjudication, and potential remedies, this article presents evidence that both builds on and pushes this scholarship in new directions.  In contrast to law and APD scholars who have promoted a ‘regime politics’ model of judicial authority that focuses on the interests of national elected officials and Supreme Court majorities, this article finds that actors pursuing retrenchment come from both within and outside the judiciary, evidencing a robust set of individuals and interests (far beyond judges and politicians) who might be considered “judicial” actors.  Building on and complicating current understandings of the politics of retrenchment, moreover, I find that the groups involved in judicial retrenchment change significantly over time, are motivated by more than partisan backlash, and that the availability of malleable institutional “rules” enhances the likelihood of their success.  Finally, I find that the processes of judicial retrenchment are distinctive but not static, unfolding in a series of methods for attempted change that are not only path dependent, but also path breaking.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<affiliations>
<list>
<country>
<li>États-Unis</li>
</country>
<region>
<li>New Jersey</li>
</region>
<settlement>
<li>Princeton (New Jersey)</li>
</settlement>
<orgName>
<li>Université de Princeton</li>
</orgName>
</list>
<tree>
<country name="États-Unis">
<region name="New Jersey">
<name sortKey="Staszak, Sarah" sort="Staszak, Sarah" uniqKey="Staszak S" first="Sarah" last="Staszak">Sarah Staszak</name>
</region>
<name sortKey="Staszak, Sarah" sort="Staszak, Sarah" uniqKey="Staszak S" first="Sarah" last="Staszak">Sarah Staszak</name>
</country>
</tree>
</affiliations>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 004E95 | SxmlIndent | more

Ou

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 004E95 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    Main
   |étape=   Exploration
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     ISTEX:D703A5970E35E568FF122F7679EF5CC5AFBD8B68
   |texte=   Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment
}}

Wicri

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32.
Data generation: Thu Nov 30 15:26:48 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 8 16:36:20 2022