Convention All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~mpsa/
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p363914_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Massie, Tajuana. ""The Hierarchy of Justice: Exploring the Influence of the Separation of Powers Structure on U.S. Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interaction”" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, Apr 02, 2009 <Not Available>. 2009-11-10 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p363914_index.html>

Massie, T. D. , 2009-04-02 ""The Hierarchy of Justice: Exploring the Influence of the Separation of Powers Structure on U.S. Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interaction”" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-11-10 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p363914_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: This study explores the relationship between the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals in relation to appeals court treatment of Court precedent. Constructing a comprehensive model of U.S. Courts of Appeals behavior, I test for the influence of the preferences of justices sitting on the current Supreme Court as well as the preferences of Congress and the President (i.e., the separation of powers structure) on the likelihood of courts of appeals judges deciding to respond either positive (i.e., follow) or negative (i.e., not follow) to Supreme Court precedent. In so doing, I employed a large number of precedent-setting cases by the Court and their progeny in the courts of appeals compiled across different issues (both constitutional and statutory decisions) between the years of 1954 and 2003. In addition to the multivariate analysis conducted is a comprehensive theory of U.S. Courts of Appeals decision-making that takes into account existing theories of hierarchical relations between the federal courts, as well as the influence of the separation of powers structure of the American political system. Based on the empirical evidence, this study leads to some interesting findings and conclusions concerning both Supreme Court impact and lower court decision-making. In particular, this study finds that although Court precedent does matter to courts of appeals judges, they are also influenced by their own personal policy preferences. More importantly, the empirical evidence indicates that appeals court judges are also strategic actors, and their behavior and final decisions regarding Court precedent depends upon a complex interaction between the preferences of the judges deciding the cases, the current Supreme Court, as well as members of the other political branches of government.

Revisiting the Policy Preferences of United States Courts of Appeals Judges

State Supreme Courts and the Political Environment:How Interest Group Participation Influences State Policy-Making