Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court of Canada

[9515025 .弗莱明]控制议程，决定决定什么，是对权力的重大行使。法院有自由裁量权选择他们想要审理的上诉，可以通过选择一些案件和忽略其他案件来推动法律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)法院的判决反映了法理标准和关切；(2)议程设置过程受到诉讼资源的影响；(3)大法官根据其政策目标和成功预期进行战略性投票。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，复制美国方法和发现的比较研究将在加拿大最高法院进行。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衍生假设条件的重要案例。本研究采用三角法研究，生成定量、定性和档案数据，以全面解释加拿大最高法院如何决定判决，以及它与美国的不同之处。%%%%控制议程，决定决定什么，是对权力的重要行使。法院有自由裁量权选择他们想要审理的上诉，可以通过选择一些案件和忽略其他案件来推动法律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)法院的判决反映了法理标准和关切；(2)议程设置过程受到诉讼资源的影响；(3)大法官根据其政策目标和成功预期进行战略性投票。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，复制美国方法和发现的比较研究将在加拿大最高法院进行。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衍生假设条件的重要案例。本研究采用三角法研究，生成定量、定性和档案数据，以全面解释加拿大最高法院如何决定判决，以及它与美国的不同之处。＊＊＊＊

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. ****