Ashlyn Kuersten
Biographic Data
| ID | 4180349 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Ashlyn Kuersten |
| GIVEN NAMES | Ashlyn |
| FAMILY NAME | Kuersten |
| SIGNATURE | KUERSTEN A |
| AFFILIATIONS | Western Michigan University |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 5 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 49 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 5 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1995 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2003 |
| H-INDEX | 3 |
Presidential Success Through Appointments To The United States Courts Of Appeals
An enduring legacy for any president is achieved by appointing judges with similar policy preferences who then maintain those policy preferences during their tenure on the bench and long after leaving office. This process provides one of the few democratic checks on the judiciary. Some authors demonstrate that in the areas of social and economic policy, Supreme Court justices’ policy votes are concordant with their appointing presidents over time…
Does the Interest Group Choir Really “Sing with an Upper Class Accent?‘
Since Schattschneider (1960), several scholars have argued that the least powerful groups in society will have limited access to the governmental arena; the bias inherent in the system will largely prevent those lacking in power from attaining many of their policy preferences. Yet race and gender-based groups, two of the least powerful groups in society, have been relatively successful in getting some of their demands turned into policy
Why the Haves Don't Always Come out Ahead
Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead
The question of who wins and loses in American courts has traditionally been viewed as one of the central questions in the study of judicial politics. State supreme courts are particularly important in this regard since they are the final arbiters for the vast majority of litigation in the nation. In this article we examine the relationship between the status of litigants, especially the comparison of repeat player “haves” to oneshotters who are …
The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts
During the past decade, interest group participation in state supreme courts has continued to increase, reflecting the increasing importance of these courts as policymakers in the federal system. Groups participate both as sponsors of litigation and as amici curiae, but little is known about either role. The present analysis explores the success of amici curiae in state supreme court decisions on the merits. Three methods of assessing the relatio…
The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts
During the past decade, interest group participation in state supreme courts has continued to increase, reflecting the increasing importance of these courts as policymakers in the federal system. Groups participate both as sponsors of litigation and as amici curiae, but little is known about either role. The present analysis explores the success of amici curiae in state supreme court decisions on the merits. Three methods of assessing the relatio…
Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead
The question of who wins and loses in American courts has traditionally been viewed as one of the central questions in the study of judicial politics. State supreme courts are particularly important in this regard since they are the final arbiters for the vast majority of litigation in the nation. In this article we examine the relationship between the status of litigants, especially the comparison of repeat player “haves” to oneshotters who are …
Why the Haves Don't Always Come out Ahead
Presidential Success Through Appointments To The United States Courts Of Appeals
An enduring legacy for any president is achieved by appointing judges with similar policy preferences who then maintain those policy preferences during their tenure on the bench and long after leaving office. This process provides one of the few democratic checks on the judiciary. Some authors demonstrate that in the areas of social and economic policy, Supreme Court justices’ policy votes are concordant with their appointing presidents over time…
The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts
During the past decade, interest group participation in state supreme courts has continued to increase, reflecting the increasing importance of these courts as policymakers in the federal system. Groups participate both as sponsors of litigation and as amici curiae, but little is known about either role. The present analysis explores the success of amici curiae in state supreme court decisions on the merits. Three methods of assessing the relatio…
Does the Interest Group Choir Really “Sing with an Upper Class Accent?‘
Since Schattschneider (1960), several scholars have argued that the least powerful groups in society will have limited access to the governmental arena; the bias inherent in the system will largely prevent those lacking in power from attaining many of their policy preferences. Yet race and gender-based groups, two of the least powerful groups in society, have been relatively successful in getting some of their demands turned into policy
Why the Haves Don't Always Come out Ahead
Why the Haves Don't Always Come Out Ahead
The question of who wins and loses in American courts has traditionally been viewed as one of the central questions in the study of judicial politics. State supreme courts are particularly important in this regard since they are the final arbiters for the vast majority of litigation in the nation. In this article we examine the relationship between the status of litigants, especially the comparison of repeat player “haves” to oneshotters who are …
Presidential Success Through Appointments To The United States Courts Of Appeals
An enduring legacy for any president is achieved by appointing judges with similar policy preferences who then maintain those policy preferences during their tenure on the bench and long after leaving office. This process provides one of the few democratic checks on the judiciary. Some authors demonstrate that in the areas of social and economic policy, Supreme Court justices’ policy votes are concordant with their appointing presidents over time…
Law (5 works) · Political science (5 works) · Law (4 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (3 works) · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (3 works) · Legal and Constitutional Studies (3 works) · Politics (3 works) · Supreme court (3 works) · Disadvantaged (2 works) · Economics (2 works)