Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Dedication -- Book Title -- Copyright -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgements -- List of Illustrations -- Introduction -- Chapter 1 Mary Ann Nichols ('Polly') -- Chapter 2 Annie Chapman ('Dark Annie') -- Chapter 3 Elizabeth Stride ('Long Liz') -- Chapter 4 Catherine Eddowes ('Kate') -- Chapter 5 Mary Jane Kelly ('Ginger') -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Bibliography and Further Reading -- Index.

Judges as policymakers -- The attitudinal model -- The legal model -- The strategic model -- Judicial selection and retention -- Courts and the public -- The impact of courts

What impact do federal courts have on the administrative agencies of the federal government? How do agencies react to the decisions of federal courts? This book answers these questions by examining the responses of federal agencies to the U.S. Courts, revealing what happens inside agencies after courts rule against them.

Abstract
This review essay of The Elevator Effect, by Morgan L. W. Hazelton, Rachael K. Hinkle, and Michael J. Nelson, considers the authors' premise that collegiality is a central determinant of judicial behavior, on par with other leading influences such as attitudes, the law, and strategy. The authors make a strong case that judges on collegial courts forge relationships when they serve in close contact with one another over long careers and that these relationships influence the choices judges make. This review essay engages the authors' theory and highlights the areas in which it seems to offer the most explanatory power: notably, the decision by judges to write separately (e.g., dissent, concur) on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The essay also reflects on the limitations of collegiality and how the theory may be less helpful in accounting for behavior in other contexts, such as the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the topics explored are the decision to reverse, citation practices, and the use of discourteous rhetoric by federal judges.

Legitimacy theory suggests that judges are uniquely capable of increasing public support for government policies. However, this capacity may not be universal but conditional, depending on the institutional design of courts. In the United States, institutional differences between federal and state courts may make state judiciaries less capable of increasing public support for government policies. I investigate this possibility using an original survey experiment. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three treatments, attributing the legalization of same-sex marriage to a state court, a governor, or a state legislature. I find, generally, that state courts are no more effective than other state institutions at building public support, but that this capacity of courts is variable, depending on levels of judicial independence. Adapted from the source document.

The literature on state constitutional amendments remains undeveloped despite recent activity in the area of same-sex marriage policy. Previous studies have assumed that the adoption of state constitutional amendments is governed by routine policy considerations, but there are strong theoretical reasons for expecting attributes of state institutions also to affect adoption. In this study, I compare institutional and policy explanations for the enactment of state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Although I expect routine policy considerations to affect the adoption of amendments, I also expect adoption to be influenced by attributes of state institutions, in particular, the capacity of state high courts to produce decisions favoring marriage equality. Using event history analysis, I find that the initial consideration of amendments is driven by policy considerations but that adoption is also guided by institutional considerations, such as the professionalization of state high courts.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) faces persistent fundamental change in its strategic and operating environments. This report suggests this reality is the product of the United States entering or being in the midst of a new, more competitive, post-U.S. primacy environment. Post-primacy conditions promise far-reaching impacts on U.S. national security and defense strategy. Consequently, there is an urgent requirement for DoD to examine and adapt how it develops strategy and describes, identifies, assesses, and communicates corporate-level risk. This report takes on the latter risk challenge. It argues for a new post-primacy risk concept and its four governing principles of diversity, dynamism, persistent dialogue, and adaptation. The authors suggest that this approach is critical to maintaining U.S. military advantage into the future. Absent change in current risk convention, the report suggests DoD exposes current and future military performance to potential failure or gross under-performance. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1410/thumbnail.jpg

U.S. competitors pursuing meaningful revision or rejection of the current U.S.-led status quo are employing a host of hybrid methods to advance and secure interests contrary to those of the United States. These challengers employ unique combinations of influence, intimidation, coercion, and aggression to incrementally crowd out effective resistance, establish local or regional advantage, and manipulate risk perceptions in their favor. So far, the United States has not come up with a coherent countervailing approach. It is in this "gray zone"—the awkward and uncomfortable space between traditional conceptions of war and peace—where the United States and its defense enterprise face systemic challenges to U.S. position and authority. Gray zone competition and conflict present fundamental challenges to U.S. and partner security and, consequently, should be important pacers for U.S. defense strategy. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1924/thumbnail.jpg