WorldCat Identities

Curry, Brett W. 1978-

Works: 3 works in 10 publications in 1 language and 346 library holdings
Roles: Author
Classifications: KF8748, 347.7326
Publication Timeline
Most widely held works by Brett W Curry
Decision making by the modern Supreme Court by Richard L Pacelle( Book )

8 editions published in 2011 in English and Undetermined and held by 272 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

"There are three general models of Supreme Court decision making: the legal model, the attitudinal model and the strategic model. But each is somewhat incomplete. This book advances an integrated model of Supreme Court decision making that incorporates variables from each of the three models. In examining the modern Supreme Court, since Brown v. Board of Education, the book argues that decisions are a function of the sincere preferences of the justices, the nature of precedent, and the development of the particular issue, as well as separation of powers and the potential constraints posed by the president and Congress. To test this model, the authors examine all full, signed civil liberties and economic cases decisions in the 1953-2000 period. Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court argues, and the results confirm, that judicial decision making is more nuanced than the attitudinal or legal models have argued in the past"--Provided by publisher
Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court by Jr, Richard L Pacelle( )

1 edition published in 2011 in English and held by 4 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

The courts, congress, and the politics of federal jurisdiction by Brett W Curry( )

1 edition published in 2005 in English and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Abstract: Although the institutional relationship between the federal courts and Congress has been the subject of substantial empirical research, scholars know relatively little about the specific role that jurisdiction plays in structuring that relationship. Most prior scholarship has focused on ways in which Congress has attempted to use its influence over court structure and judicial personnel to impact the federal courts. However, Congress's ability to expand or limit the types of cases eligible for federal court review has received much less attention. By analyzing congressional efforts to limit federal jurisdiction in two major areas of law, this dissertation sheds light on jurisdiction's role in the relationship between these governmental branches and, more generally, the degree of autonomy from congressional oversight that the federal judiciary possesses. The dissertation's assessment of this jurisdictional activity begins with a technical area of federal statutory jurisdiction known as diversity jurisdiction. There, I examine the impact that judicial outcomes, court caseloads, and group involvement have played in motivating congressional attempts to limit diversity jurisdiction's scope. I conclude that, while administrative caseload factors have accounted for much of Congress's jurisdictional activity in this area of statutory law, dissatisfaction with federal court outcomes has also contributed to Congress's jurisdictional activity in a more limited way. The dissertation then moves to an analysis of congressional attempts to curtail federal jurisdiction over certain areas of constitutional law. I assess the impact of judicial outcomes, public opinion, Congress's ideological preferences, and several related factors on the intensity with which legislators have sought to exclude certain constitutional claims from the purview of the federal courts since the 1950s. The results of these analyses indicate that the tenor of federal judicial outcomes, the preferences of the general public, and the likelihood of judicial reversal all relate to the intensity with which members of Congress pursue this jurisdiction- or court-stripping legislation. Taken together, the dissertation's results suggest that jurisdictional politics may be more critical to the relationship between the federal courts and Congress than most scholars have acknowledged. At a minimum, the dissertation's results intimate that separation-of-powers models of the courts and Congress cannot be complete without an acknowledgement of jurisdiction's potential importance to the relationship between these two institutions
Audience Level
Audience Level
  Kids General Special  
Audience level: 0.60 (from 0.59 for Decision m ... to 0.91 for Decision M ...)

Decision making by the modern Supreme CourtDecision Making by the Modern Supreme Court
Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court