Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment
Identifieur interne : 004F36 ( Main/Merge ); précédent : 004F35; suivant : 004F37Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment
Auteurs : Sarah Staszak [États-Unis]Source :
- Studies in American Political Development [ 0898-588X ] ; 2010-10.
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
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 006A65
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 006A65
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 001997
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:D703A5970E35E568FF122F7679EF5CC5AFBD8B68Le 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>
</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>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Main/Merge
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 004F36 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Merge/biblio.hfd -nk 004F36 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Wicri/Santé |area= EdenteV2 |flux= Main |étape= Merge |type= RBID |clé= ISTEX:D703A5970E35E568FF122F7679EF5CC5AFBD8B68 |texte= Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment }}
This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |