Court Rewarding and Curbing

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Court Rewarding and Curbing A Bicameral Analysis of Incentives and Sanctions between the United States Congress and the Federal Judiciary
Physical Description:
1 online resource (272 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Tecklenburg, Henry C
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Political Science
Committee Chair:
DODD,LARRY CLOYD
Committee Co-Chair:
HENDERSHOT,MARCUS E
Committee Members:
ROSENSON,BETH ANN
O NEILL,DANIEL
WRIGHT,DANAYA C

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
agent -- bicameral -- congress -- court -- curbing -- judicial -- judiciary -- principal -- rewarding -- rewards -- sanctions
Political Science -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Political Science thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Most studies that examine the relationship between Congress and the judiciary attempt to explain judicial behavior by analyzing whether and to what extent the Supreme Court modifies its behavior to comport with congressional preferences. These studies examine the relationship between these institutions from the Court’s perspective, and implicitly assume that Congress is superior. This dissertation reverses scope by examining the relationship from Congress’ perspective, but makes the implicit assumption explicit by utilizing the principal-agent model. The application of this model begins with the Judiciary Act of 1925, in which Congress granted the Supreme Court discretion in selecting cases on its docket. This dissertation examines how Congress has attempted to monitor and control the judiciary following the passage of this Act. Unlike prior studies that strictly examine the Supreme Court’s response to congressional attempts to sanction it through court curbing legislation, this dissertation incorporates incentives, as it is believed that Congress may attempt to control the judiciary through rewards. Also, in contrast to other studies, this dissertation uses a bicameral analysis to examine the relationship between these institutions. It is believed that differences between the chambers may cause divergent results in how each approaches its relationship with the judicial branch.  An original dataset was created In order to adequately examine the relationship between each chamber and the judiciary. The dataset identifies over 60,000 bills that were referred to a judiciary committee from 1925 – 2008. Of these bills, only those that were reported out of committee were coded as having curbed the judiciary’s power or rewarded it. Additional variables are included in the analysis which may affect the relationship between these institutions, including judicial review, the Supreme Court’s dissent rate, the Court’s changing agenda, ideological institutional distance, polarization, and divided government. Results indicate that there are major differences regarding how each chamber of Congress treats the judiciary. While the Senate’s efforts are largely aimed at responding to institutional threats, the House’s attempts are mostly motivated by partisanship. However, both chambers appear to respond to the transformation of the Court’s agenda over time.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Henry C Tecklenburg.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: DODD,LARRY CLOYD.
Local:
Co-adviser: HENDERSHOT,MARCUS E.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2015-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0046206:00001