Issue fluidity and agenda setting on the warren court

Political Research Quarterly

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 39-65

  Palmer, Barbara ^a  

^a SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22644450404     PISSN: 10659129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/106591299905200102     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Aldisert, Ruggero. 1992. Winning on Appeal: Better Briefs and Oral Argument. New York: Clark, Boardman and Callaghan.
2. Armstrong, Virginia, and Charles Johnson. 1982. "Certiorari Decisions by the Warren and Burger Courts: Is Cue Theory Time Bound?" Polity 15: 143-50.
3. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1936. 297 U.S. 288.
4. Baker, Stewart. 1984. "A Practical Guile to Certiorari." Catholic University of America Law Review 33: 611-32.
5. Baker v. Carr. 1962. 368 U.S. 186.
6. Baum, Lawrence. 1977. "Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction." American Journal of Political Science 21: 13-35.
7. _. 1988. "Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 82 (3): 905-12.
8. Baumgartner, Frank, and Bryan Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Brenner, Saul, and John Krol. 1989. "Strategies in Certiorari Voting on the United States Supreme Court." Journal of Politics 51 (4): 828-40.
10. Brown v. Board of Education. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.
11. Brown v. Board of Education. 1955. 349 U.S. 294.
12. _. 1976. Continuity and Change: From the Warren Court to the Burger Court. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
13. Weiss, Janet. 1989. "The Powers of Problem Definition: The Case of Government Paperwork." Policy Sciences 22: 97-121.
14. Wolf v. Colorado. 1949. 338 U.S. 25.