000			03983nam a22005175i 4500
001			194328
003			IT-RoAPU
005			20221214232753.0
006			m|||||o||d||||||||
007			cr || ||||||||
008			210830t20182006nju fo d z eng d
020			_a9780691188041 _qPDF
024	7		_a10.1515/9780691188041 _2doi
035			_a(DE-B1597)9780691188041
035			_a(DE-B1597)501647
035			_a(OCoLC)1076408731
040			_aDE-B1597 _beng _cDE-B1597 _erda
072		7	_aLAW018000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_a347.73/262
084			_aonline - DeGruyter
100	1		_aHansford, Thomas G. _eautore
245	1	4	_aThe Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court / _cJames F. Spriggs, Thomas G. Hansford.
264		1	_aPrinceton, NJ : _bPrinceton University Press, _c[2018]
264		4	_c©2006
300			_a1 online resource
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_atext file _bPDF _2rda
505	0	0	_tFrontmatter -- _tContents -- _tFigures and Tables -- _tAcknowledgments -- _tCHAPTER ONE. Introduction -- _tCHAPTER TWO. Explaining the Interpretation of Precedent -- _tCHAPTER THREE. Measuring the Interpretation of Precedent -- _tCHAPTER FOUR. The Interpretation of Precedent over Time -- _tCHAPTER FIVE. The Overruling of Precedent -- _tCHAPTER SIX. The Interpretation of Precedent in Majority Opinions -- _tCHAPTER SEVEN. Lower Federal Court Responses to the Supreme Court's Interpretation of Precedent -- _tCHAPTER EIGHT. Concluding Remarks and Broader Implications -- _tAppendix -- _tReferences -- _tIndex
506	0		_arestricted access _uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec _fonline access with authorization _2star
520			_aThe Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court offers an insightful and provocative analysis of the Supreme Court's most important task--shaping the law. Thomas Hansford and James Spriggs analyze a key aspect of legal change: the Court's interpretation or treatment of the precedents it has set in the past. Court decisions do not just resolve immediate disputes; they also set broader precedent. The meaning and scope of a precedent, however, can change significantly as the Court revisits it in future cases. The authors contend that these interpretations are driven by an interaction between policy goals and variations in the legal authoritativeness of precedent. From this premise, they build an explanation of the legal interpretation of precedent that yields novel predictions about the nature and timing of legal change. Hansford and Spriggs test their hypotheses by examining how the Court has interpreted the precedents it set between 1946 and 1999. This analysis provides compelling support for their argument, and demonstrates that the justices' ideological goals and the role of precedent are inextricably linked. The two prevailing, yet contradictory, views of precedent--that it acts either solely as a constraint, or as a "cloak" that never actually influences the Court--are incorrect. This book shows that while precedent can operate as a constraint on the justices' decisions, it also represents an opportunity to foster preferred societal outcomes.
538			_aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
546			_aIn English.
588	0		_aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 30. Aug 2021)
650		0	_aLaw _zUnited States _xInterpretation and construction.
650		0	_aPolitical questions and judicial power _zUnited States.
650		0	_aStare decisis _zUnited States.
650		7	_aLAW / Constitutional. _2bisacsh
700	1		_aSpriggs, James F. _eautore
850			_aIT-RoAPU
856	4	0	_uhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9780691188041?locatt=mode:legacy
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780691188041
856	4	2	_3Cover _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/cover/covers/9780691188041.jpg
942			_cEB
999			_c194328 _d194328