Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court
Of the nearly five thousand cases presented to the Supreme Court each year, less than 5 percent are granted review. How the Court sets its agenda, therefore, is perhaps as important as how it decides cases. H. W. Perry, Jr., takes the first hard look at the internal workings of the Supreme Court, illuminating its agenda-setting policies, procedures, and priorities as never before. He conveys a wealth of new information in clear prose and integrates insights he gathered in unprecedented interviews with five justices. For this unique study Perry also interviewed four U.S. solicitors general, several deputy solicitors general, seven judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and sixty-four former Supreme Court law clerks. The clerks and justices spoke frankly with Perry, and his skillful analysis of their responses is the mainspring of this book. His engaging report demystifies the Court, bringing it vividly to life for general readers--as well as political scientists and a wide spectrum of readers throughout the legal profession. Perry not only provides previously unpublished information on how the Court operates but also gives us a new way of thinking about the institution. Among his contributions is a decision-making model that is more convincing and persuasive than the standard model for explaining judicial behavior.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
accepted agenda appeal areas argue argument asked attempt bargaining behavior believe better Brennan capital cert certiorari certworthy chambers Chapter chief circuit clerks common concern conference considered course deal decided decision defensive denial deny determine discuss list discussion dissents example fact federal feel final four frequently give given grant happens hear important interesting interviews involved issue join judges judgment Judicial jurisdiction justices lawyers less look mean memo merits never noted obvious opinion outcome particular Perry petition political pool memo practice presented Press probably problem procedure question rarely reasons response role rule Science seems seen selection sense signals simply situation sometimes statement strategic suggested summary Supreme Court talk theory things thought types understand United University usually vote writ write written