東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back to Search results for [ null ]

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Ruling in the Shadows: Analysis of t...

Smart, EmiLee,

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Ruling in the Shadows: Analysis of the Supreme Court's Use of the 'Shadow Docket' and Its Effects /

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Ruling in the Shadows: Analysis of the Supreme Court's Use of the 'Shadow Docket' and Its Effects // EmiLee Smart.
Author:	Smart, EmiLee,
Description:	1 electronic resource (160 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-12, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-12A.
Subject:	Public opinion. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31346233
ISBN:	9798382764047

Ruling in the Shadows: Analysis of the Supreme Court's Use of the 'Shadow Docket' and Its Effects /
Smart, EmiLee,

Ruling in the Shadows: Analysis of the Supreme Court's Use of the 'Shadow Docket' and Its Effects /EmiLee Smart. - 1 electronic resource (160 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-12, Section: A.

The recent increased use of the shadow docket has left the public and scholars with unanswered questions about how procedures influence outcomes and behavior. Many of these shadow docket cases have been petitioned to the justices as emergencies in very important policy areas such as immigration, abortion, elections, and transgender rights. I collect a large dataset of all outcomes of the Supreme Court's shadow docket from 2010-2022. I examine the language the justices use to justify their decisions made using alternate procedures. I find unique differences in the justifying behavior of the justices as well as significant differences in the amount of justification used over time. To better understand how judges make these emergency decisions, I examine under what conditions Justices agree to grant emergency applications on the docket by examining petitions and outcomes of all emergency cases from 2017-2023. I find that petitioner resources and ideology impacts whether an emergency petition is granted. Finally, I examine how the public reacts to the Court making decisions using alternate procedures. I theorize that procedures matter in changing public opinion of an institution when the procedures are nontransparent, stray from expected norms, and are thus perceived as politically unfair. I administered a survey experiment and find evidence to suggest that use of the shadow docket procedure does lead to less support for decisions as well as an increased support for measures of broad court curbing (e.g., lower legitimacy). The results have important implications for approval of the Court as well as the role of the Court in a transparent democracy.

English

ISBN: 9798382764047Subjects--Topical Terms:

531264
Public opinion.

Ruling in the Shadows: Analysis of the Supreme Court's Use of the 'Shadow Docket' and Its Effects /
LDR:02955nmm a22003853i 4500 001 2391375
005 20250923061210.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 251029s2024 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798382764047
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31346233
035 $a (MiAaPQD)Kentuckypolyscietds1053
035 $a AAI31346233
035 $a 2391375
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Smart, EmiLee, $e author. $3 3759193
245 1 0 $a Ruling in the Shadows: Analysis of the Supreme Court's Use of the 'Shadow Docket' and Its Effects / $c EmiLee Smart.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 1 electronic resource (160 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-12, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Wedeking, Justin.
502 $b Ph.D. $c University of Kentucky $d 2024.
520 $a The recent increased use of the shadow docket has left the public and scholars with unanswered questions about how procedures influence outcomes and behavior. Many of these shadow docket cases have been petitioned to the justices as emergencies in very important policy areas such as immigration, abortion, elections, and transgender rights. I collect a large dataset of all outcomes of the Supreme Court's shadow docket from 2010-2022. I examine the language the justices use to justify their decisions made using alternate procedures. I find unique differences in the justifying behavior of the justices as well as significant differences in the amount of justification used over time. To better understand how judges make these emergency decisions, I examine under what conditions Justices agree to grant emergency applications on the docket by examining petitions and outcomes of all emergency cases from 2017-2023. I find that petitioner resources and ideology impacts whether an emergency petition is granted. Finally, I examine how the public reacts to the Court making decisions using alternate procedures. I theorize that procedures matter in changing public opinion of an institution when the procedures are nontransparent, stray from expected norms, and are thus perceived as politically unfair. I administered a survey experiment and find evidence to suggest that use of the shadow docket procedure does lead to less support for decisions as well as an increased support for measures of broad court curbing (e.g., lower legitimacy). The results have important implications for approval of the Court as well as the role of the Court in a transparent democracy.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0102
650 4 $a Public opinion. $3 531264
650 4 $a Language. $3 643551
650 4 $a Injunctions. $3 3759195
650 4 $a Legitimacy. $3 3564151
650 4 $a National security. $3 594947
650 4 $a Decision making. $3 517204
650 4 $a Abortion. $3 818164
650 4 $a Petitions. $3 3560981
650 4 $a Supreme Court decisions. $3 3682979
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
690 $a 0679
690 $a 0398
710 2 $a University of Kentucky. $e degree granting institution. $3 3759194
720 1 $a Wedeking, Justin $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-12A.
790 $a 0102
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31346233