Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court
Each year thousands of cases and litigants come to the Supreme Court. How can the Court find the most important cases to decide? The law of obscenity illustrates particularly well the Court's problem as it constructs its plenary agenda. Using data drawn from petitions for certiorari and jurisdi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The American political science review 1993-09, Vol.87 (3), p.717-726 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 726 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 717 |
| container_title | The American political science review |
| container_volume | 87 |
| creator | McGuire, Kevin T. Caldeira, Gregory A. |
| description | Each year thousands of cases and litigants come to the Supreme Court. How can the Court find the most important cases to decide? The law of obscenity illustrates particularly well the Court's problem as it constructs its plenary agenda. Using data drawn from petitions for certiorari and jurisdictional statements filed with the Supreme Court from 1955 to 1987, we formulate and test a model of case selection in which professional obscenity lawyers and organized interests figure as critical elements in the process of agenda building. We also encounter strong evidence of the Court's differential treatment of several different litigants. Moreover, the calculus of selection changed markedly over time, as the Court itself changed; the Burger Court and Warren Court weighed several of the criteria quite differently. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2307/2938746 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60925923</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_2307_2938746</cupid><galeid>A14541201</galeid><sourcerecordid>A14541201</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c584t-af7a4becb188d039815325eab5aedfe1ef9f1b4c21c9de2d95c58ba44cfc7f933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0l9v0zAQAPAIgUQZiK8QgQRDWsB_k5i3UrGuoqKCFfHAg-Uk5-AtcYrtaJRPj0crYNPQkB8sn34-352cJI8xekkoKl4RQcuC5XeSCea0yLhg9G4yQQjRDHHO7icPvD-LR4RROUm-LNXFFpw_SleuVdb8gCZd2AAOfIhBZZs0fIU0qnTQ6aryNVgTtq_TaQu2UekphGBsmxr7y52OGwc9pLNhdOFhck-rzsOj_X6QfDp-u56dZMvVfDGbLrOalyxkSheKVVBXuCwbREUZ6yYcVMUVNBowaKFxxWqCa9EAaQSP9yrFWK3rQgtKD5Jnu7wbN3wbY-GyN7HOrlMWhtHLHAnCBbkdcpHTvIwDvA3SkuU5pjzCJ9fgWezcxm4lwYxRQjmJ6Om_EKaIFfFVgaM62qlWdSCN1UNwqo5TBqe6wYI2MTzFjDNM0CXPbuBxNdCb-iZ_eMVHEuB7aNXovVycLP6bvplfoc93tHaD9w603DjTK7eVGMnL7yj33_FPvcbHZL-ZcucyL2jBZT7_INfL9-Lj-vOxfBf9i31m1VfONC38NbVruX8CvGjpaA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>214432352</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>McGuire, Kevin T. ; Caldeira, Gregory A.</creator><creatorcontrib>McGuire, Kevin T. ; Caldeira, Gregory A.</creatorcontrib><description>Each year thousands of cases and litigants come to the Supreme Court. How can the Court find the most important cases to decide? The law of obscenity illustrates particularly well the Court's problem as it constructs its plenary agenda. Using data drawn from petitions for certiorari and jurisdictional statements filed with the Supreme Court from 1955 to 1987, we formulate and test a model of case selection in which professional obscenity lawyers and organized interests figure as critical elements in the process of agenda building. We also encounter strong evidence of the Court's differential treatment of several different litigants. Moreover, the calculus of selection changed markedly over time, as the Court itself changed; the Burger Court and Warren Court weighed several of the criteria quite differently.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-0554</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-5943</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/2938746</identifier><identifier>CODEN: APORBP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Agenda ; AGENDA, AGENDA-SETTING ; Attorneys ; BURGER COURT ; Courts ; Decisions ; EARL WARREN ; FREEDOM OF SPEECH ; Interest groups ; Law ; LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Lawyers ; Legal procedure ; Litigation ; Obscenity ; Obscenity (Law) ; Political science ; Pornography & obscenity ; Research Note ; Supreme Court ; SUPREME COURT (ALL NATIONS) ; United States</subject><ispartof>The American political science review, 1993-09, Vol.87 (3), p.717-726</ispartof><rights>Copyright © American Political Science Association 1993</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 1993 Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>Copyright American Political Science Association Sep 1993</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c584t-af7a4becb188d039815325eab5aedfe1ef9f1b4c21c9de2d95c58ba44cfc7f933</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c584t-af7a4becb188d039815325eab5aedfe1ef9f1b4c21c9de2d95c58ba44cfc7f933</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12844,27864,27868,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McGuire, Kevin T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caldeira, Gregory A.</creatorcontrib><title>Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court</title><title>The American political science review</title><addtitle>Am Polit Sci Rev</addtitle><description>Each year thousands of cases and litigants come to the Supreme Court. How can the Court find the most important cases to decide? The law of obscenity illustrates particularly well the Court's problem as it constructs its plenary agenda. Using data drawn from petitions for certiorari and jurisdictional statements filed with the Supreme Court from 1955 to 1987, we formulate and test a model of case selection in which professional obscenity lawyers and organized interests figure as critical elements in the process of agenda building. We also encounter strong evidence of the Court's differential treatment of several different litigants. Moreover, the calculus of selection changed markedly over time, as the Court itself changed; the Burger Court and Warren Court weighed several of the criteria quite differently.</description><subject>Agenda</subject><subject>AGENDA, AGENDA-SETTING</subject><subject>Attorneys</subject><subject>BURGER COURT</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Decisions</subject><subject>EARL WARREN</subject><subject>FREEDOM OF SPEECH</subject><subject>Interest groups</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Lawyers</subject><subject>Legal procedure</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Obscenity</subject><subject>Obscenity (Law)</subject><subject>Political science</subject><subject>Pornography & obscenity</subject><subject>Research Note</subject><subject>Supreme Court</subject><subject>SUPREME COURT (ALL NATIONS)</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0003-0554</issn><issn>1537-5943</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1993</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0l9v0zAQAPAIgUQZiK8QgQRDWsB_k5i3UrGuoqKCFfHAg-Uk5-AtcYrtaJRPj0crYNPQkB8sn34-352cJI8xekkoKl4RQcuC5XeSCea0yLhg9G4yQQjRDHHO7icPvD-LR4RROUm-LNXFFpw_SleuVdb8gCZd2AAOfIhBZZs0fIU0qnTQ6aryNVgTtq_TaQu2UekphGBsmxr7y52OGwc9pLNhdOFhck-rzsOj_X6QfDp-u56dZMvVfDGbLrOalyxkSheKVVBXuCwbREUZ6yYcVMUVNBowaKFxxWqCa9EAaQSP9yrFWK3rQgtKD5Jnu7wbN3wbY-GyN7HOrlMWhtHLHAnCBbkdcpHTvIwDvA3SkuU5pjzCJ9fgWezcxm4lwYxRQjmJ6Om_EKaIFfFVgaM62qlWdSCN1UNwqo5TBqe6wYI2MTzFjDNM0CXPbuBxNdCb-iZ_eMVHEuB7aNXovVycLP6bvplfoc93tHaD9w603DjTK7eVGMnL7yj33_FPvcbHZL-ZcucyL2jBZT7_INfL9-Lj-vOxfBf9i31m1VfONC38NbVruX8CvGjpaA</recordid><startdate>19930901</startdate><enddate>19930901</enddate><creator>McGuire, Kevin T.</creator><creator>Caldeira, Gregory A.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>American Political Science Association</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IBG</scope><scope>IHI</scope><scope>GHXMH</scope><scope>GPCCI</scope><scope>IBDFT</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19930901</creationdate><title>Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court</title><author>McGuire, Kevin T. ; Caldeira, Gregory A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c584t-af7a4becb188d039815325eab5aedfe1ef9f1b4c21c9de2d95c58ba44cfc7f933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1993</creationdate><topic>Agenda</topic><topic>AGENDA, AGENDA-SETTING</topic><topic>Attorneys</topic><topic>BURGER COURT</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Decisions</topic><topic>EARL WARREN</topic><topic>FREEDOM OF SPEECH</topic><topic>Interest groups</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Lawyers</topic><topic>Legal procedure</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Obscenity</topic><topic>Obscenity (Law)</topic><topic>Political science</topic><topic>Pornography & obscenity</topic><topic>Research Note</topic><topic>Supreme Court</topic><topic>SUPREME COURT (ALL NATIONS)</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McGuire, Kevin T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caldeira, Gregory A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Biography</collection><collection>Gale In Context: U.S. History</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 09</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 10</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 27</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>The American political science review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McGuire, Kevin T.</au><au>Caldeira, Gregory A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court</atitle><jtitle>The American political science review</jtitle><addtitle>Am Polit Sci Rev</addtitle><date>1993-09-01</date><risdate>1993</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>717</spage><epage>726</epage><pages>717-726</pages><issn>0003-0554</issn><eissn>1537-5943</eissn><coden>APORBP</coden><abstract>Each year thousands of cases and litigants come to the Supreme Court. How can the Court find the most important cases to decide? The law of obscenity illustrates particularly well the Court's problem as it constructs its plenary agenda. Using data drawn from petitions for certiorari and jurisdictional statements filed with the Supreme Court from 1955 to 1987, we formulate and test a model of case selection in which professional obscenity lawyers and organized interests figure as critical elements in the process of agenda building. We also encounter strong evidence of the Court's differential treatment of several different litigants. Moreover, the calculus of selection changed markedly over time, as the Court itself changed; the Burger Court and Warren Court weighed several of the criteria quite differently.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.2307/2938746</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0003-0554 |
| ispartof | The American political science review, 1993-09, Vol.87 (3), p.717-726 |
| issn | 0003-0554 1537-5943 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60925923 |
| source | PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Agenda AGENDA, AGENDA-SETTING Attorneys BURGER COURT Courts Decisions EARL WARREN FREEDOM OF SPEECH Interest groups Law LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS Laws, regulations and rules Lawyers Legal procedure Litigation Obscenity Obscenity (Law) Political science Pornography & obscenity Research Note Supreme Court SUPREME COURT (ALL NATIONS) United States |
| title | Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T09%3A02%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lawyers,%20Organized%20Interests,%20and%20the%20Law%20of%20Obscenity:%20Agenda%20Setting%20in%20the%20Supreme%20Court&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20political%20science%20review&rft.au=McGuire,%20Kevin%20T.&rft.date=1993-09-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=717&rft.epage=726&rft.pages=717-726&rft.issn=0003-0554&rft.eissn=1537-5943&rft.coden=APORBP&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/2938746&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA14541201%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=214432352&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A14541201&rft_cupid=10_2307_2938746&rfr_iscdi=true |