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

制定议程的过程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系统的工作，这一事实在很大程度上是由于缺乏关于拒绝调取案卷的案件的系统数据。这些案件中的绝大多数都拒绝了最高法院复审的调卷请求。如果没有足够的被拒绝案例样本，由于因变量的选择结果，议程设置的分析缺乏有效性。本研究将分析《美国报告》每卷后面“命令”一节中随机抽取的一组简易判决，以提供关于法院未批准案件的议程设定数据。虽然以前的文森和沃伦法院数据库包含了拒绝审查的案件，但它们不包含我在每卷的主要部分（“已判决的案件”）中为案件提供的其他变量集：身份、背景、时间顺序、实质性和结果。没有后五组——连同案件名称、摘要、判决日期和参与审判的法官的投票——就无法进行有意义的比较。为了加强“已判决案件”和“订单”样本之间的比较，PI将在Burger Court数据库中的4370个“已判决案件”判决和“订单”样本中添加一系列相关变量。他还将把汉堡法院数据库中包含的与证书拒绝相关的334个变量添加到样本案例中。由此产生的数据库将是大量关心法院议程制定过程的社会科学家和法律学者的非常宝贵的资源，无论他们所关心的是评估基于一系列社会法律传统的现有理论的预测，还是建立和检验新的理论。仅受用户想象力限制的理论和模型将经得起系统和严格的检验。最后，这些数据将进行广泛的可靠性测试，并将存档在密歇根州立大学的网站上，因此，所有感兴趣的个人和组织都可以免费获得并轻松访问。

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.