Selecting the Select Few: The Discuss List and the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda-Setting Process
Objective. We investigate whether informational cues differentially affect a petition for review at each stage of the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda-setting process. We specifically test how the cost of identifying a cue and the degree of information provided within it affect the cue's impact...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Social science quarterly 2013-12, Vol.94 (4), p.1124-1144 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1144 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 1124 |
| container_title | Social science quarterly |
| container_volume | 94 |
| creator | Black, Ryan C. Boyd, Christina L. |
| description | Objective. We investigate whether informational cues differentially affect a petition for review at each stage of the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda-setting process. We specifically test how the cost of identifying a cue and the degree of information provided within it affect the cue's impact. Methods. We use a random sample of archival data obtained from the private papers of Justice Harry A. Blackmun to jointly analyze the Court's discuss list and final outcome decisions. Results. Confirming our expectations, we find that both positive cues and negative cues play different roles across the two stages of the Court's agenda-setting process. Conclusions. These findings are noteworthy since they suggest that the impact of some commonly studied case attributes differs between when a case is selected for the initial level of review versus when it is added to the Court's plenary docket. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00933.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1497641504</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>42864450</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>42864450</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5633-56abb2cb0595a2bd82ed50b57b84663d66aff0835c24b621b0b9c5f9b87d3e713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNks2O0zAUhSMEEmXgEZAsIQSbBP_bQWIx02EKUgWD0oodlu04Q0KaFDvRdN4epxl1wape2L6637nX9nGSAAQzFMeHJkOMwpRjIjIMEc4gzAnJDk-SxSnxNFlASGRKc4qeJy9CaCCEFFO5SH4VrnV2qLs7MPx2YI7Ajbv_CDYxvq6DHUMA6zoMQHflEdpmRQaKce_dzoFlP_rhXQCXd64rdVq44Vjs1vfWhfAyeVbpNrhXj-tFsr35vFl-SdffV1-Xl-vUMk5Iyrg2BlsDWc40NqXErmTQMGEk5ZyUnOuqgpIwi6nhGBlocsuq3EhREicQuUjez3X3vv87ujCoXTy5a1vduX4MCtFccIoYpOegPGc4TuegVDCExYS--Q9t4sN08c6R4liK2B5HSs6U9X0I3lVq7-ud9g8KQTXZqRo1uaYm19RkpzraqQ5R-vaxgQ5Wt5XXna3DSY8lRNFjGLlPM3dft-7h7PqqKH5s4y7qX8_6Jgy9P-kplpxSNtVP53z8Ee5wymv_R3FBBFM_v63U5vaao9WVVJj8A-sAx8w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1462877642</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Selecting the Select Few: The Discuss List and the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda-Setting Process</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Black, Ryan C. ; Boyd, Christina L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Black, Ryan C. ; Boyd, Christina L.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective. We investigate whether informational cues differentially affect a petition for review at each stage of the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda-setting process. We specifically test how the cost of identifying a cue and the degree of information provided within it affect the cue's impact. Methods. We use a random sample of archival data obtained from the private papers of Justice Harry A. Blackmun to jointly analyze the Court's discuss list and final outcome decisions. Results. Confirming our expectations, we find that both positive cues and negative cues play different roles across the two stages of the Court's agenda-setting process. Conclusions. These findings are noteworthy since they suggest that the impact of some commonly studied case attributes differs between when a case is selected for the initial level of review versus when it is added to the Court's plenary docket.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0038-4941</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-6237</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00933.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SSQTAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Amicus curiae briefs ; Cues ; Data analysis ; Decision analysis ; Decision making ; Dissenting opinions ; Expectations ; General Interest ; Information ; Judicial behaviour ; Judicial Decisions ; Judicial process ; Judiciary ; Justice ; Legal briefs ; Legal evidence ; Litigants ; Lower courts ; Petition ; Petitioners ; Political science ; Random Samples ; Social sciences ; Sociology ; Sociology of law and criminology ; Sociology of law and justice ; Solicitors general ; Supreme Court ; Supreme Court decisions ; U.S.A ; United States Supreme Court</subject><ispartof>Social science quarterly, 2013-12, Vol.94 (4), p.1124-1144</ispartof><rights>2013 Southwestern Social Science Association</rights><rights>2012 by the Southwestern Social Science Association</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dec 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5633-56abb2cb0595a2bd82ed50b57b84663d66aff0835c24b621b0b9c5f9b87d3e713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5633-56abb2cb0595a2bd82ed50b57b84663d66aff0835c24b621b0b9c5f9b87d3e713</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42864450$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/42864450$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27924,27925,33774,33775,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28010030$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Black, Ryan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyd, Christina L.</creatorcontrib><title>Selecting the Select Few: The Discuss List and the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda-Setting Process</title><title>Social science quarterly</title><addtitle>Social Science Quarterly</addtitle><description>Objective. We investigate whether informational cues differentially affect a petition for review at each stage of the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda-setting process. We specifically test how the cost of identifying a cue and the degree of information provided within it affect the cue's impact. Methods. We use a random sample of archival data obtained from the private papers of Justice Harry A. Blackmun to jointly analyze the Court's discuss list and final outcome decisions. Results. Confirming our expectations, we find that both positive cues and negative cues play different roles across the two stages of the Court's agenda-setting process. Conclusions. These findings are noteworthy since they suggest that the impact of some commonly studied case attributes differs between when a case is selected for the initial level of review versus when it is added to the Court's plenary docket.</description><subject>Amicus curiae briefs</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Dissenting opinions</subject><subject>Expectations</subject><subject>General Interest</subject><subject>Information</subject><subject>Judicial behaviour</subject><subject>Judicial Decisions</subject><subject>Judicial process</subject><subject>Judiciary</subject><subject>Justice</subject><subject>Legal briefs</subject><subject>Legal evidence</subject><subject>Litigants</subject><subject>Lower courts</subject><subject>Petition</subject><subject>Petitioners</subject><subject>Political science</subject><subject>Random Samples</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Sociology of law and criminology</subject><subject>Sociology of law and justice</subject><subject>Solicitors general</subject><subject>Supreme Court</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>United States Supreme Court</subject><issn>0038-4941</issn><issn>1540-6237</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNks2O0zAUhSMEEmXgEZAsIQSbBP_bQWIx02EKUgWD0oodlu04Q0KaFDvRdN4epxl1wape2L6637nX9nGSAAQzFMeHJkOMwpRjIjIMEc4gzAnJDk-SxSnxNFlASGRKc4qeJy9CaCCEFFO5SH4VrnV2qLs7MPx2YI7Ajbv_CDYxvq6DHUMA6zoMQHflEdpmRQaKce_dzoFlP_rhXQCXd64rdVq44Vjs1vfWhfAyeVbpNrhXj-tFsr35vFl-SdffV1-Xl-vUMk5Iyrg2BlsDWc40NqXErmTQMGEk5ZyUnOuqgpIwi6nhGBlocsuq3EhREicQuUjez3X3vv87ujCoXTy5a1vduX4MCtFccIoYpOegPGc4TuegVDCExYS--Q9t4sN08c6R4liK2B5HSs6U9X0I3lVq7-ud9g8KQTXZqRo1uaYm19RkpzraqQ5R-vaxgQ5Wt5XXna3DSY8lRNFjGLlPM3dft-7h7PqqKH5s4y7qX8_6Jgy9P-kplpxSNtVP53z8Ee5wymv_R3FBBFM_v63U5vaao9WVVJj8A-sAx8w</recordid><startdate>201312</startdate><enddate>201312</enddate><creator>Black, Ryan C.</creator><creator>Boyd, Christina L.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Southwestern Social Science Association</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201312</creationdate><title>Selecting the Select Few: The Discuss List and the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda-Setting Process</title><author>Black, Ryan C. ; Boyd, Christina L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5633-56abb2cb0595a2bd82ed50b57b84663d66aff0835c24b621b0b9c5f9b87d3e713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Amicus curiae briefs</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Dissenting opinions</topic><topic>Expectations</topic><topic>General Interest</topic><topic>Information</topic><topic>Judicial behaviour</topic><topic>Judicial Decisions</topic><topic>Judicial process</topic><topic>Judiciary</topic><topic>Justice</topic><topic>Legal briefs</topic><topic>Legal evidence</topic><topic>Litigants</topic><topic>Lower courts</topic><topic>Petition</topic><topic>Petitioners</topic><topic>Political science</topic><topic>Random Samples</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Sociology of law and criminology</topic><topic>Sociology of law and justice</topic><topic>Solicitors general</topic><topic>Supreme Court</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>United States Supreme Court</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Black, Ryan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyd, Christina L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Social science quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Black, Ryan C.</au><au>Boyd, Christina L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Selecting the Select Few: The Discuss List and the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda-Setting Process</atitle><jtitle>Social science quarterly</jtitle><addtitle>Social Science Quarterly</addtitle><date>2013-12</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1124</spage><epage>1144</epage><pages>1124-1144</pages><issn>0038-4941</issn><eissn>1540-6237</eissn><coden>SSQTAL</coden><abstract>Objective. We investigate whether informational cues differentially affect a petition for review at each stage of the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda-setting process. We specifically test how the cost of identifying a cue and the degree of information provided within it affect the cue's impact. Methods. We use a random sample of archival data obtained from the private papers of Justice Harry A. Blackmun to jointly analyze the Court's discuss list and final outcome decisions. Results. Confirming our expectations, we find that both positive cues and negative cues play different roles across the two stages of the Court's agenda-setting process. Conclusions. These findings are noteworthy since they suggest that the impact of some commonly studied case attributes differs between when a case is selected for the initial level of review versus when it is added to the Court's plenary docket.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, NJ</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00933.x</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0038-4941 |
| ispartof | Social science quarterly, 2013-12, Vol.94 (4), p.1124-1144 |
| issn | 0038-4941 1540-6237 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1497641504 |
| source | Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; Access via Wiley Online Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Amicus curiae briefs Cues Data analysis Decision analysis Decision making Dissenting opinions Expectations General Interest Information Judicial behaviour Judicial Decisions Judicial process Judiciary Justice Legal briefs Legal evidence Litigants Lower courts Petition Petitioners Political science Random Samples Social sciences Sociology Sociology of law and criminology Sociology of law and justice Solicitors general Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions U.S.A United States Supreme Court |
| title | Selecting the Select Few: The Discuss List and the U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda-Setting Process |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T11%3A35%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Selecting%20the%20Select%20Few:%20The%20Discuss%20List%20and%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court's%20Agenda-Setting%20Process&rft.jtitle=Social%20science%20quarterly&rft.au=Black,%20Ryan%20C.&rft.date=2013-12&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1124&rft.epage=1144&rft.pages=1124-1144&rft.issn=0038-4941&rft.eissn=1540-6237&rft.coden=SSQTAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00933.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E42864450%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1462877642&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=42864450&rfr_iscdi=true |