Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court of Canada

9515025弗莱明控制议程，决定决定什么，是一种重要的权力行使。法院有权自由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法理标准和关切；(2)议程制定过程受到诉讼资源的影响；(3)最高法院法官根据其政策目标和对成功的期望进行战略性投票。在其他发达的民主国家，几乎没有做过比较研究来测试美国文学的概括性。在这里，将在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在制度和程序上存在重大差异，这使得加拿大法院成为检验和确定美国衍生假说的条件的重要案件。这项研究使用三角研究来生成定量、定性和档案数据，以全面解释加拿大最高法院如何做出裁决以及它与美国的不同之处。%控制议程，决定决定什么，是一种重要的权力行使。法院有权自由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法理标准和关切；(2)议程制定过程受到诉讼资源的影响；(3)最高法院法官根据其政策目标和对成功的期望进行战略性投票。在其他发达的民主国家，几乎没有做过比较研究来检验美国文学的概括性。在这里，将在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在制度和程序上存在重大差异，这使得加拿大法院成为检验和确定美国衍生假说的条件的重要案件。这项研究使用三角研究来生成定量、定性和档案数据，以全面解释加拿大最高法院如何做出裁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. ****