Topic
Supreme court
About: Supreme court is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 41858 publications have been published within this topic receiving 306787 citations. The topic is also known as: court of last resort & highest court of appeal.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Book•
26 Oct 2001
106 citations
Book•
11 Jan 2012
TL;DR: In this paper, the Legacies of legal pluralism, subjecthood, and state-building in China and Japan are investigated, and the evolution of Jurisdiction over Foreigners in Japan from the "Expulsion Edict" to the Treaty of Tianjin.
Abstract: Acknowledgments Introduction Chapter 1 Excavating Extraterritoriality: The Legacies of Legal Pluralism, Subjecthood, and State-Building in China and Japan Chapter 2 Codifying extraterritoriality: The Chinese "Unequal Treaties" Chapter 3 Institutionalizing Extraterritoriality: The Mixed Court and the British Supreme Court in Shanghai Chapter 4 Exporting Extraterritoriality: The Evolution of Jurisdiction over Foreigners in Japan from the "Expulsion Edict" to the "Treaty of Tianjin" Chapter 5 Executing Extraterritoriality: Sino-Japanese Cases under the Treaty of Tianjin Chapter 6: Expelling Extraterritoriality: Treaty Revision in Meiji Japan and Qing China, 1860-1912 Conclusion Glossary Notes Bibliography
106 citations
TL;DR: Inaction to address housing segregation in metropolitan areas has resulted in persistently high levels of residential segregation as discussed by the authors, which has led to a significant increase in residential segregation in the US.
Abstract: Inaction to address housing segregation in metropolitan areas has resulted in persistently high levels of residential segregation. As the Supreme Court has recently limited school districts’ volunt...
106 citations
TL;DR: How exchanges became controversial and why so few Republican-led states opted for their own exchange are explored are explored, focusing on the intensifying resistance to Obamacare amid a rightward shift in state politics, partisan polarization, and uncertainty over the ACA's fate.
Abstract: Enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) created a dilemma for Republican policy makers at the state level. States could maximize control over decision making and avoid federal intervention by establishing their own health insurance exchanges. Yet GOP leaders feared that creating exchanges would entrench a law they intensely opposed and undermine legal challenges to the ACA. Republicans' calculations were further complicated by uncertainty over the Supreme Court's ruling on the ACA's constitutionality and the outcome of the November 2012 elections. In the first year of operation, only seventeen states and the District of Columbia chose to design and implement their own exchanges; another six partnered with the federal government, and twenty-seven states ceded control to Washington. Out of thirty states with Republican governors in 2013, only four launched their own exchange. Why did many Republican-led states that initially appeared open to establishing exchanges ultimately reverse course? Drawing on interviews with state policy makers and secondary data, we trace the evolution of Republican responses to the exchange dilemma during 2010-13. We explore how exchanges became controversial and explain why so few Republican-led states opted for their own exchange, focusing on the intensifying resistance to Obamacare amid a rightward shift in state politics, partisan polarization, and uncertainty over the ACA's fate.
106 citations
TL;DR: The authors examined the role of public statements made by presidents during confirmation battles and found strong support for the hypothesis that presidents strategically “go public.” Further, this strategy has a marked influence on presidents' ability to win confirmation for their most important nominees.
Abstract: The Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process has become one of the most contentious aspects of American politics in recent years, representing a seismic struggle between the president and the U.S. Senate over the ideological makeup of the nation's highest court. Existing research focuses on how the ideological compatibility of the president and the Senate affects the ideology of the president's nominees. However, little work addresses whether presidents can overcome an ideologically hostile Senate by spending political capital to support a nominee. As such, we examine the president's public expenditure of capital to obtain confirmation for Supreme Court nominees facing a Senate that is reticent to confirm. By content analyzing public statements made by presidents during confirmation battles we find strong support for the hypothesis that presidents strategically “go public.” Further, this strategy has a marked influence on presidents’ ability to win confirmation for their most important nominees.“...
106 citations