哈里·布莱克蒙与司法行为研究我们能学到什么?

C. Escobar-Jiménez
{"title":"哈里·布莱克蒙与司法行为研究我们能学到什么?","authors":"C. Escobar-Jiménez","doi":"10.26851/rucp.31.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": This article analyses two key models of judicial decision-making studies. The aim of this paper is to study the assumptions of the rational choice and attitudinal models in relation to existing studies on the way Justice Harry Blackmun voted during his tenure on the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition, this work analyses four emblematic cases judged by Justice Blackmun, through the perspective of ideological or strategic voting. Theories of voting in judicial behavior presuppose that judicial actors’ decisions are guided by two broad types of rational possibilities: 1) they act strategically when align themselves with the choices of the authority who appoints them to office or on whom their re-election depends; 2) they act out of conviction when, either because of their ideology or because of rulings within the legal technique, they make their decisions. The central thesis of this paper is that the analysis of Justice Blackmun’s vote allows us to redefine, extend or look critically at several of the assumptions of the theories and models.","PeriodicalId":30990,"journal":{"name":"Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Politica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harry Blackmun y los estudios de Judicial Behavior ¿Qué podemos aprender?\",\"authors\":\"C. Escobar-Jiménez\",\"doi\":\"10.26851/rucp.31.2.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": This article analyses two key models of judicial decision-making studies. The aim of this paper is to study the assumptions of the rational choice and attitudinal models in relation to existing studies on the way Justice Harry Blackmun voted during his tenure on the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition, this work analyses four emblematic cases judged by Justice Blackmun, through the perspective of ideological or strategic voting. Theories of voting in judicial behavior presuppose that judicial actors’ decisions are guided by two broad types of rational possibilities: 1) they act strategically when align themselves with the choices of the authority who appoints them to office or on whom their re-election depends; 2) they act out of conviction when, either because of their ideology or because of rulings within the legal technique, they make their decisions. The central thesis of this paper is that the analysis of Justice Blackmun’s vote allows us to redefine, extend or look critically at several of the assumptions of the theories and models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30990,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Politica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Politica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26851/rucp.31.2.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Politica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26851/rucp.31.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了司法决策研究的两个关键模型。本文的目的是研究理性选择和态度模型的假设,以及对哈里·布莱克蒙大法官在美国最高法院任职期间投票方式的现有研究。此外,本文还从意识形态或战略投票的角度,分析了布莱克门法官判决的四个具有象征意义的案件。司法行为中的投票理论预设,司法行为者的决定受两种广泛的理性可能性的指导:1)当他们与任命他们任职或他们的连任所依赖的权力机构的选择保持一致时,他们会采取战略行动;2) 当他们做出决定时,无论是因为他们的意识形态,还是因为法律技术范围内的裁决,他们都是出于信念。本文的中心论点是,对布莱克门大法官投票的分析使我们能够重新定义、扩展或批判性地看待理论和模型的几个假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Harry Blackmun y los estudios de Judicial Behavior ¿Qué podemos aprender?
: This article analyses two key models of judicial decision-making studies. The aim of this paper is to study the assumptions of the rational choice and attitudinal models in relation to existing studies on the way Justice Harry Blackmun voted during his tenure on the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition, this work analyses four emblematic cases judged by Justice Blackmun, through the perspective of ideological or strategic voting. Theories of voting in judicial behavior presuppose that judicial actors’ decisions are guided by two broad types of rational possibilities: 1) they act strategically when align themselves with the choices of the authority who appoints them to office or on whom their re-election depends; 2) they act out of conviction when, either because of their ideology or because of rulings within the legal technique, they make their decisions. The central thesis of this paper is that the analysis of Justice Blackmun’s vote allows us to redefine, extend or look critically at several of the assumptions of the theories and models.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信