Collaborative Research on the Formation of Opinion Coalitions on the U. S. Supreme Court

美国最高法院意见联盟形成的合作研究

• 批准号: 9320509
• 负责人: Jeffrey Segal
• 金额: $ 9.78万
• 依托单位: SUNY at Stony Brook
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 1994
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 1994-03-01 至 1998-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=9320509&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Collaborative; Research; Formation; Opinion; Coalitions

9320509 SEGAL This collaborative project investigates how coalitions are formed on the U.S. Supreme Court. A particular focus is the process by which opinions are written, often including many drafts and various shifts in position as the doctrines that could decide a case are debated among the members of the Court. The proposed research has scientific significance for two reasons. First, by emphasizing the policies and doctrine enunciated by the Court through its opinions, rather than simply counting votes on winning and losing sides, the project refocuses the scientific study of the American legal system. Second, the project expands the field of coalition analysis by examining an institution composed of non-elected officials instead of legislatures and political parties. To test the model of opinion coalition, the project calls for the collection of data from two sources: the official records of the Supreme Court of the United States and the collected papers of five justices, spanning from Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite to Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall. Specific information culled from these sources includes: the policies at issue, the tentative and final votes of the justices, the size and composition of opinion coalitions, the number of opinion drafts, and the length of time between votes on the merits and final opinions. ***

小行星9320509 这个合作项目调查了美国最高法院如何形成联盟。 一个特别的重点是撰写意见的过程，往往包括许多草稿，以及法院法官在辩论可能决定案件的理论时立场的各种转变。 这项研究之所以具有科学意义，有两个原因。首先，通过强调最高法院通过其意见所阐述的政策和学说，而不是简单地计算输赢双方的选票，该项目重新关注对美国法律的制度的科学研究。 第二，该项目通过考察由非选举官员组成的机构而不是立法机构和政党，扩大了联盟分析的领域。 为了检验意见联盟模型，该项目要求从两个来源收集数据：美国最高法院的官方记录和五位大法官的论文集，从首席大法官莫里森R。等一下瑟古德马歇尔大法官。 从这些来源精选的具体信息包括：有争议的政策、法官的初步和最终投票、意见联盟的规模和组成、意见草案的数量以及对是非曲直的投票和最终意见之间的时间长度。 ***