|
Showing 1 - 2 of
2 matches in All Departments
When presidents take positions on pending Supreme Court cases or
criticize the Court's decisions, they are susceptible to being
attacked for acting as bullies and violating the norm of judicial
independence. Why then do presidents target Supreme Court decisions
in their public appeals? In this book, Paul M. Collins, Jr and
Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha argue that presidents discuss the Court's
decisions to demonstrate their responsiveness to important matters
of public policy and to steer the implementation of the Court's
decisions. Using data from Washington to Trump, they show that, far
from being bullies, presidents discuss cases to promote their
re-election, policy goals, and historical legacies, while
attempting to affect the impact of Court decisions on the
bureaucracy, Congress, the media, and the public.
When presidents take positions on pending Supreme Court cases or
criticize the Court's decisions, they are susceptible to being
attacked for acting as bullies and violating the norm of judicial
independence. Why then do presidents target Supreme Court decisions
in their public appeals? In this book, Paul M. Collins, Jr and
Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha argue that presidents discuss the Court's
decisions to demonstrate their responsiveness to important matters
of public policy and to steer the implementation of the Court's
decisions. Using data from Washington to Trump, they show that, far
from being bullies, presidents discuss cases to promote their
re-election, policy goals, and historical legacies, while
attempting to affect the impact of Court decisions on the
bureaucracy, Congress, the media, and the public.
|
|