Agenda Setting for the Burger Court Judicial Database, 169-1985 Terms

汉堡法院司法数据库的议程设置，169-1985 条款

• 批准号: 0339088
• 负责人: Harold Spaeth
• 金额: $ 12.04万
• 依托单位: Michigan State University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2004
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2004-01-15 至 2007-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0339088&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Agenda; Setting; Burger; Court; Judicial

The process of setting its agenda has long been recognized as among the Supreme Court's most significant activities. Yet, little systematic work has been done on this critical aspect of the Court's decision making, a fact due in large part to the absence of systematic data on cases denied certiorari. The great majority of these cases deny certiorari requests for Supreme Court review. Without an adequate sample of the denied cases, analysis of agenda setting lacks validity because selection on the dependent variable results. This study will analyze a random set of summary decisions from the "orders" section at the back of each volume of the United States Reports to provide the agenda-setting data on cases not granted by the Court. Although the previous Vinson and Warren Court databases contain the cases denied review, they do not contain the other sets of variables that I have provided for the cases in the main part of each volume ("cases adjudged"): identification, background, chronological, substantive, and outcome. Without these latter five sets - along with case name, docket, date of decision, and the votes of the participating justices - meaningful comparisons cannot be had. In order to enhance comparison between the "cases adjudged" and a sample of "orders," the PI will add a series of relevant variables to the 4370 "cases adjudged" decisions in the Burger Court database, and to the sample of "orders." He will also add to the sampled cases those of the 334 variables that the Burger Court database contains that are also relevant to cert denials. The resulting database will be a highly valuable resource for the large number of social scientists and legal academics concerned with the Court's agenda setting process, whether that concern assesses the predictions of existing theories grounded in a range of socio-legal traditions or with building and testing new theories. Theories and models limited only by users' imaginations will be amenable to systematic and rigorous testing. Finally, these data will be subject to extensive reliability testing, and will be archived at the Michigan State website and, as such, freely available and easily accessible to all interested individuals and organizations.

长期以来，最高法院议程的制定一直被认为是最高法院最重要的活动之一。 然而，在法院裁决的这一关键方面，几乎没有做过系统的工作，这在很大程度上是由于缺乏关于拒绝认证的案件的系统数据。 这些案件中的绝大多数都拒绝了最高法院的复审请求。没有足够的样本被拒绝的情况下，议程设置的分析缺乏有效性，因为选择的因变量的结果。本研究将分析《美国报告》每卷后面“命令”部分的一组随机简易判决，以提供关于法院未批准案件的数据。 尽管文森和沃伦法院之前的数据库包含了拒绝复审的案件，但它们不包含我在每卷主要部分（“已判决案件”）中为案件提供的其他变量：身份、背景、时间顺序、实质性和结果。如果没有这五组数据--沿着案件名称、备审案件、判决日期和参与法官的投票--就不可能进行有意义的比较。为了加强“已判决案件”和“命令”样本之间的比较，PI将在伯格法院数据库中的4370个“已判决案件”判决和“命令”样本中添加一系列相关变量。“他还将在抽样案件中添加汉堡法院数据库中包含的334个变量中的那些变量，这些变量也与拒绝证书有关。 由此产生的数据库将成为关注法院议程制定进程的大量社会科学家和法律的学者的一个非常宝贵的资源，无论这种关注是评估基于一系列社会法律的传统的现有理论的预测，还是建立和测试新的理论。理论和模型只受用户想象力的限制，将经得起系统和严格的检验。最后，这些数据将接受广泛的可靠性测试，并将在密歇根州网站上存档，因此，所有感兴趣的个人和组织都可以免费获得。