How Courts Structure State-Level Representation

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan P. Kastellec
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Median Voter ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Structure State ◽  
The Relationship

I examine how courts condition the relationship between state-level public opinion and policy. The system of federalism in the United States allows federal and state courts to establish the types of policies that states are constitutionally allowed to implement. In particular, federal courts can set “federal floors” for policy, below which no states can go. State courts, in turn, can raise the level of this floor. Thus, both federal and state courts shape whether state policy can match the preferences of the median voter in a given state. Analyzing data on public opinion, judicial decisions, and state-level policy on the issue of abortion, from 1973 to 2012, I show that changes in the set of allowable abortion restrictions, according to the combined decisions of state and federal courts, significantly affect whether states implement majority-preferred policies. I also show that ignoring the influence of courts on the policymaking environment significantly affects the estimated level of policy congruence and thus conclusions about the scope of representation. These results demonstrate the importance of placing courts in the larger study of state-level representation.

Trust in Government and the American Public’s Responsiveness to Rising Inequality

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 790-804 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Macdonald
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
State Level ◽  
Political Trust ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trust In Government ◽  
Combine Data ◽  
Election Studies ◽  
The Relationship

The United States has become increasingly unequal. Income inequality has risen dramatically since the 1970s, yet public opinion toward redistribution has remained largely unchanged. This is puzzling, given Americans’ professed concern regarding, and knowledge of, rising inequality. I argue that trust in government can help to reconcile this. I combine data on state-level income inequality with survey data from the Cumulative American National Election Studies (CANES) from 1984 to 2016. I find that trust in government conditions the relationship between inequality and redistribution, with higher inequality prompting demand for government redistribution, but only among politically trustful individuals. This holds among conservatives and non-conservatives and among the affluent and non-affluent. These findings underscore the relevance of political trust in shaping attitudes toward inequality and economic redistribution and contribute to our understanding of why American public opinion has not turned in favor of redistribution during an era of rising income inequality.

Erie v. Tompkins and the Relationship Between Federal and State Courts

1942 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 885-895
Author(s):  
Kenneth C. Cole
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Federal System ◽  
The Relationship

Erie v. Tompkins evidences decentralizing trends in our federal system in two different ways—one fairly obvious and relatively orthodox; the other neither obvious nor orthodox, but probably the more significant. The first aspect may be touched upon very briefly and the ramifications of the second explored more fully.The obvious side of Erie v. Tompkins lies in its rejection of a common law of the United States available for application by the federal courts in diversity cases. This conception was given expression by Story in Swift v. Tyson, and has been followed in many, if not most, of the succeeding cases building upon and expanding Story's doctrine.

United States Supreme Court Rules on Expert Testimony

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 934-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary N. McAbee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Many medical and legal commentators have expressed concern about the validity of scientific evidence that is proffered by expert witnesses at depositions and in courts of law.1,2 The sparse research that is available on the testimony of medical expert witnesses suggests that it is frequently flawed and erroneous.3 On June 28, 1993, the United States (US) Supreme Court ruled on the proper standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom.4 Although the ruling establishes guidelines that are binding only in federal courts, it is expected that many state courts will follow the Court's ruling. This commentary reviews the Court's guidelines for admissibility of expert testimony, and expresses concern about their applicability in future cases involving scientific testimony.

Pendent Jurisdiction in Australia—Section 32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976

1979 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. C. Gummow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Statutory Law ◽  
The Future

The Federal Court of Australia has only the jurisdiction conferred on it by statute. However, many disputes falling within that jurisdiction, particularly in trade practices matters, will also involve elements of common law or other State or federal statutory law. Section 32 invests in the Federal Court additional jurisdiction in some such cases in respect of “associated matters”. This may be compared with “pendent jurisdiction” developed by the federal courts in the United States. The object of this article is to analyse the meaning of the term “associated matters” and to consider the bearing it has upon the future relationship between the Federal Court and the various State courts.

scholarly journals Guerra e opinião pública nos Estados Unidos: o caso da Guerra do Iraque em 2003 / War and public opinion in the United States: the Iraq War in 2003

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-448
Author(s):  
Cláudio Júnior Damin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Iraq War ◽  
The United States ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Relationship

O artigo aborda a relação existente entre guerra e opinião pública nos Estados Unidos. O artigo foca na análise do caso da Guerra do Iraque iniciada em março de 2003 durante os mandatos de George W. Bush. Esse conflito insere-se no contexto dos ataques terroristas de 11 de setembro de 2001, sendo parte constitutiva da chamada “guerra global contra o terrorismo”. A primeira hipótese de trabalho é a de que inicialmente e reproduzindo padrões históricos anteriores, a guerra foi amplamente aprovada pela população norte-americana, processo que se prolongou por alguns meses e influenciou decisivamente para a reeleição do presidente republicano em 2004. Como segunda hipótese assevera-se que, passado algum tempo, o humor da opinião pública sofreu uma inflexão, diminuindo a aprovação popular à guerra e tendo como importante desdobramento a derrota dos republicanos na eleição de 2008, com o conflito ainda em curso. Espera-se mostrar, portanto, como a Guerra do Iraque pode ser dividida em duas fases distintas, sendo a primeira de bônus para o governo de George W. Bush e seus correligionários republicanos e a outra de ônus a partir do crescimento do número de baixas militares norte-americanas e da crise de credibilidade do governo no que concerne às perspectivas de vitória definitiva no conflito.Abstract: The article discusses the relationship between war and public opinion in the United States. The article focuses on the analysis of the case of the Iraq War that began in March 2003 during the administration of George W. Bush. This conflict is within the context of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, being a constituent part of the "Global War on Terrorism." The first hypothesis is that initially and reproducing previous historical standards, the war was widely approved by the American population, a process that was prolonged for a few months and influenced decisively to the re-election of Republican president in 2004. As a second hypothesis asserts that, after some time, the mood of public opinion has undergone a shift, reducing the public approval of the war and with the important effect the defeat of the Republicans in the 2008 election. It is expected, therefore, to show how the Iraq War can be divided into two distinct phases, with the first bonus for the George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans and other liens being from the growing number of U.S. military casualties and the crisis of credibility of the government with regard to the prospects of ultimate victory in the conflict.

Public opinion and public policy in the United States

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saundra K. Schneider ◽  
William G. Jacoby
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Aggregate Level ◽  
The Public ◽  
Democratic Responsiveness ◽  
Policy Attitudes ◽  
Policy Field ◽  
The Relationship

In a properly-functioning democracy, public opinion should not only be correlated with, but also a major determinant of, public policy. Is that the case in the United States? In this chapter, we address that question by covering the major lines of empirical research on the relationship between American public opinion and public policy. We begin with early work that emphasized the limits of popular thinking about government, creating the apparent need for democratic elitism in governmental action. More recent literature includes perspectives from the public policy field, and research on democratic responsiveness at both the national and state levels. Major lines of work emphasize the existence of rational public opinion at the aggregate level which ‘smooths out’ the inconsistencies that may exist within individual policy attitudes. Seminal studies have considered both the degree of correspondence between opinion and policy (i.e., ‘the rational public’), and models that specify how policy responds to opinion (thermostatic responses and the macropolity). Recent methodological innovations have led to new insights about democratic responsiveness in the American states. Our general conclusion is cautiously optimistic: Policy generally does follow the contours of citizen preference, but elites also have opportunities to shape manifestations of public opinion.

Fiscal Decentralization, Commitment and Regional Inequality: Evidence from State-level Cross-sectional Data for the United States

2009 ◽  
pp. 113
Author(s):  
Nobuo Akai ◽  
Masayo Hosio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Adverse Effect ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Fiscal Decentralization ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regional Inequality ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Commitment Device

Conventional approaches to fiscal decentralization suggest that decentralization lowers the power of redistribution, but recent theories argue that fiscal decentralization can work as a commitment device. The former effect is argued to cause an increase in inter-county inequality, while the latter suggests a decrease. This article first clarifies the relationship between fiscal decentralization and inter-county inequality by using cross-sectional data for the United States. Our result indicates that the achievement of autonomy by fiscal decentralization in poor (low-income) counties contributes to decreased inter-county inequality, but that this effect is not as large as the dominating adverse effect fiscal decentralization has on rich (highincome) counties.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document