Welcome to our book review site go-pdf.online!
You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Courthouse Democracy and Minority Rights
In Courthouse Democracy and Minority Rights: Same-Sex Marriage in the States, Robert J. Hume shows how increasing the democratic accountability of courts has limited the ability of judges to act as reform agents. When judges are elected, or when their decisions can be easily overturned with initiative amendment procedures, they lose the capacity to stand up for the rights of the minorities.
Courts
"Courts: A Text/Reader provides the best of both worlds-authored text Sections with carefully selected accompanying Readings that illustrate the questions and controversies legal scholars and court researchers are investigating in the 21st century. The articles, from leading journals in criminology and criminal justice, reflect both classic studies of the criminal court system and state-of-the-art research and often have a policy perspective that makes them more applied, less theoretical, and more interesting to both undergraduate and graduate students." "This unique Text/Reader is primarily intended for undergraduate and graduate courses on the criminal court system and/or judicial processes."--BOOK JACKET.
Hardware
None
Running for Judge
Across the country, races for judgeships are becoming more and more politically contested. As a result, several states and cities are now considering judicial election reform. Running for Judge examines the increasingly contentious judicial elections over the last twenty-five years by providing a timely, insightful analysis of judicial elections. The book ties together the current state of the judicial elections literature, and presents new evidence on a wide range of important topics, including: the history of judicial elections; an understanding of the types of judicial elections; electoral competition during races; the increasing importance of campaign financing; voting in judicial electi...
Interest Groups and Health Care Reform across the United States
Universal health care was on the national political agenda for nearly a hundred years until a comprehensive (but not universal) health care reform bill supported by President Obama passed in 2010. The most common explanation for the failure of past reform efforts is that special interests were continually able to block reform by lobbying lawmakers. Yet, beginning in the 1970s, accelerating with the failure of the Clinton health care plan, and continuing through the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, health policy reform was alive and well at the state level. Interest Groups and Health Care Reform across the United States assesses the impact of interest groups to determine if collectively they are capable of shaping policy in their own interests or whether they influence policy only at the margins. What can this tell us about the true power of interest groups in this policy arena? The fact that state governments took action in health policy in spite of opposing interests, where the national government could not, offers a compelling puzzle that will be of special interest to scholars and students of public policy, health policy, and state politics.
Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America's Classrooms
Who should decide what children are taught in school? This question lies at the heart of the evolution-creation wars that have become a regular feature of the US political landscape. Ever since the 1925 Scopes 'monkey trial' many have argued that the people should decide by majority rule and through political institutions; others variously point to the federal courts, educational experts, or scientists as the ideal arbiter. Berkman and Plutzer illuminate who really controls the nation's classrooms. Based on their innovative survey of 926 high school biology teachers they show that the real power lies with individual educators who make critical decisions in their own classrooms. Broad teacher discretion sometimes leads to excellent instruction in evolution. But the authors also find evidence of strong creationist tendencies in America's public high schools. More generally, they find evidence of a systematic undermining of science and the scientific method in many classrooms.
In the Public Domain
The "public presidency"—how presidents rely on the mass media, public opinion, and various communication strategies—has become an increasingly important aspect of presidential governance and leadership during the past two decades. In the Public Domain gathers together noted presidency and communication scholars to explore the relationship between the president and the American public, the current state of the "public presidency," and the challenges that recent presidents have faced in developing an effective means of communicating and maintaining a strong presidential image. Specific topics include: how presidents use public leadership to pursue their policy goals and objectives; the importance of public opinion, rhetorical strategies, and public activities; external factors such as party politics and news media coverage; the cultivation of presidential legacy; and access to documents in presidential libraries.
Answering the Call of the Court
The U.S. Supreme Court is the quintessential example of a court that expanded its agenda into policy areas that were once reserved for legislatures. Yet scholars know very little about what causes attention to various policy areas to ebb and flow on the Supreme Court’s agenda. Vanessa A. Baird’s Answering the Call of the Court: How Justices and Litigants Set the Supreme Court Agenda represents the first scholarly attempt to connect justices’ priorities, litigants’ strategies, and aggregate policy outputs of the U.S. Supreme Court. Most previous studies on the Supreme Court’s agenda examine case selection, but Baird demonstrates that the agenda-setting process begins long before jus...
Checking the Courts
Examines and measures the extent to which statutory language affects judicial behavior. How does the language of legislative statutes affect judicial behavior? Scholars of the judiciary have rarely studied this question despite statutes being, theoretically, the primary opportunity for legislatures to ensure that those individuals who interpret the law will follow their preferences. In Checking the Courts, Kirk A. Randazzo and Richard W. Waterman offer a model that integrates ideological and legal factors through an empirical measure of statutory discretion. The model is tested across multiple judicial institutions, at both the federal and state levels, and reveals that judges are influenced by the levels of discretion afforded in the legislative statutes. In those cases where lawmakers have clear policy preferences, legislation encourages judges to strictly interpret the plain meaning of the law. Conversely, if policy preferences are unclear, legislation leaves open the possibility that judges will make decisions based on their own ideological policy preferences. Checking the Courts thus provides us with a better understanding of the dynamic interplay between law and ideology.
