Researching the Supreme Court in a Democratic Pluralist System

The political processes which invite research and the investment of associated resources are those identified as signiscant by the political theories to which we give credence. Though Democratic Pluralism is the most popular explanation of the political system in the United States, its ability to explain Supreme Court behavior cannot be evaluated, for observation of the processes by which Court agendas for national policy making purposes are constructed is not encouraged. The remedy lies in a new and broader perspective which directs attention to a number of institutional actions and incumbent behaviors until now slighted, if not ignored

Credence · Democracy · Epistemology · Law and economics · Perspective (graphical · Pluralism (philosophy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Supreme court · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies

• Issue Fluidity on the U.S. Supreme Court

  Open Access•Kevin T Mcguire, Barbara Palmer•American Political Science Review•1995

  Añadir item

• Issue Fluidity and Agenda Setting on the Warren Court

  Open Access•Barbara Palmer•Political Research Quarterly•1999

  Añadir item

• The United States Supreme Court and Criminal Cases, 1935–1976

  Open Access•Gregory A Caldeira•British Journal of Political…•1981

  Añadir item

• Individual Decisional Consistency Across Collegial Courts

  Open Access•William Nicholls, William W Nicholls•Law & Policy•1981

  Añadir item

• How rational are justices on the Supreme Court of the United States? Doctrinal considerations during agenda setting

  Open Access•Udi Sommer•Rationality and Society•2011

  Añadir item

• Case Processing

  Open Access•Susan S Silbey•Law & Society Review•1981

  Añadir item

• Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court

  Open Access•Kevin T Mcguire, Barbara Palmer•American Political Science Review•1996

  Añadir item

• Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process

  Open Access•Roger W Cobb, Roger Cobb et al.•American Political Science Review•1976

  Añadir item

• Bricolage and Assorted Thoughts on Working in the Papers of Supreme Court Justices

  Sidney Ulmer, S Sidney Ulmer•The Journal of Politics•1973

  Añadir item

• Public Opinion and Supreme Court

  Walter F Murphy, Joseph Tanenhaus•Public Opinion Quarterly•1968

  Añadir item

• "The Decision to Grant Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision "On the Merits

  Sidney Ulmer, S Sidney Ulmer•Polity•1972

  Añadir item

• The Decision to Grant or Deny Certiorari

  Open Access•Sidney Ulmer, S Sidney Ulmer et al.•Law & Society Review•1972

  Añadir item

• Supreme Court Justices as Strict and Not-so-Strict Constructionists

  Open Access•Sidney Ulmer, S Sidney Ulmer•Law & Society Review•1973

  Añadir item

• The Supreme Court and Critical Elections

  Open Access•Bradley C Canon, Sidney Ulmer et al.•American Political Science Review•1976

  Añadir item

• Courts and Conflict Resolution

  Open Access•Austin Sarat, Joel B Grossman•American Political Science Review•1975

  Añadir item

• The Supreme Court and Critical Elections

  Open Access•Richard Funston•American Political Science Review•1975

  Añadir item

• Recurring Litigants

  Open Access•Bradley C Canon, Micheal W Giles et al.•The Western Political Quarterly•1972

  Añadir item