Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court of Canada

加拿大最高法院的议程设置

• 批准号: 9515025
• 负责人: Roy Flemming
• 金额: $ 15.36万
• 依托单位: Texas A&M Research Foundation
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 1996
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 1996-03-15 至 1999-02-28
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=9515025&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Agenda; Setting; Supreme; Court; Canada

9515025 Flemming Control over agendas, deciding what to decide, is a significant exercise of power. Courts with discretion to select appeals they want to hear can move legal policies and constitutional law in particular directions by choosing some cases and by ignoring others. The literature on the United States Supreme Court suggests that: (1) the Court's decisions reflect jurisprudential criteria and concerns; (2) the agenda setting process is influenced by litigant resources; and (3) justices on the Court vote strategically in accordance with their policy goals and expectations of success. Very little comparative research has been done in other developed democracies to test the generalizability of the American literature. Here comparative research that replicates the methods and findings in the United States will be conducted on the Supreme Court of Canada. There are significant institutional and procedural differences between the U.S. and Canadian court that make the latter an important case testing and identifying the conditions for the U.S.-derived hypotheses. This study employs a triangulated research to generate the quantitative, qualitative, and archival data to develop a comprehensive explanation of how the Supreme Court of Canada decides to decide and how it differs from the United States. %%%% Control over agendas, deciding what to decide, is a significant exercise of power. Courts with discretion to select appeals they want to hear can move legal policies and constitutional law in particular directions by choosing some cases and by ignoring others. The literature on the United States Supreme Court suggests that: (1) the Court's decisions reflect jurisprudential criteria and concerns; (2) the agenda setting process is influenced by litigant resources; and (3) justices on the Court vote strategically in accordance with their policy goals and expectations of success. Very little comparative research has been done in other developed democracies to test the generalizability of th e American literature. Here comparative research that replicates the methods and findings in the United States will be conducted on the Supreme Court of Canada. There are significant institutional and procedural differences between the U.S. and Canadian court that make the latter an important case testing and identifying the conditions for the U.S.-derived hypotheses. This study employs a triangulated research to generate the quantitative, qualitative, and archival data to develop a comprehensive explanation of how the Supreme Court of Canada decides to decide and how it differs from the United States. ****

9515025弗莱明控制议程，决定决定什么，是一种重要的权力行使。 法院有权选择他们想要审理的上诉，可以通过选择一些案件而忽略其他案件，使法律的政策和宪法朝着特定的方向发展。 关于美国最高法院的文献表明：（1）最高法院的裁决反映了审慎的标准和关切;（2）议程的制定过程受到诉讼资源的影响;（3）最高法院的法官根据他们的政策目标和成功的期望进行战略性投票。在其他发达民主国家，很少有比较研究来检验美国文学的普遍性。在这里，将对加拿大最高法院进行复制美国方法和调查结果的比较研究。美国和加拿大法院之间存在着重大的制度和程序差异，这使得后者成为检验和确定美国的条件的重要案例。衍生假设。本研究采用了三角研究，以产生定量，定性和档案数据，以制定一个全面的解释，加拿大最高法院如何决定，以及它如何不同于美国。 控制议程，决定决定什么，是一种重要的权力行使。 法院有权选择他们想要审理的上诉，可以通过选择一些案件而忽略其他案件，使法律的政策和宪法朝着特定的方向发展。 关于美国最高法院的文献表明：（1）最高法院的裁决反映了审慎的标准和关切;（2）议程的制定过程受到诉讼资源的影响;（3）最高法院的法官根据他们的政策目标和成功的期望进行战略性投票。在其他发达的民主国家，很少有比较研究来检验美国文学的普遍性。在这里，将对加拿大最高法院进行复制美国方法和调查结果的比较研究。美国和加拿大法院之间存在着重大的制度和程序差异，这使得后者成为检验和确定美国的条件的重要案例。衍生假设。本研究采用了三角研究，以产生定量，定性和档案数据，以制定一个全面的解释，加拿大最高法院如何决定，以及它如何不同于美国。 ****