美国的法院、国家和民主化

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law & Policy Pub Date : 2024-05-25 DOI:10.1111/lapo.12249
Robert C. Lieberman, Kory J. Gaines
{"title":"美国的法院、国家和民主化","authors":"Robert C. Lieberman,&nbsp;Kory J. Gaines","doi":"10.1111/lapo.12249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The United States is facing an era of acute democratic fragility. The Supreme Court is often understood as a key countermajoritarian institution that often impedes democratization. But adopting an interbranch perspective, we show that the court has been a stronger champion of democratization in the United States than is typically recognized. National power has generally been necessary to overcome antidemocratic subnational policy, and national state power requires both standard setting and coercion. Using an original dataset of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights and racial equality, we show that the court was an earlier and more consistent champion of racial democratization than is generally understood but that in the absence of cooperation from the rest of the federal government's coercive apparatus, the court's standard-setting rulings had little impact. These findings suggest the conditions under which the protection of democratic gains might be possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":47050,"journal":{"name":"Law & Policy","volume":"46 4","pages":"380-395"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Courts, the state, and democratization in the United States\",\"authors\":\"Robert C. Lieberman,&nbsp;Kory J. Gaines\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lapo.12249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The United States is facing an era of acute democratic fragility. The Supreme Court is often understood as a key countermajoritarian institution that often impedes democratization. But adopting an interbranch perspective, we show that the court has been a stronger champion of democratization in the United States than is typically recognized. National power has generally been necessary to overcome antidemocratic subnational policy, and national state power requires both standard setting and coercion. Using an original dataset of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights and racial equality, we show that the court was an earlier and more consistent champion of racial democratization than is generally understood but that in the absence of cooperation from the rest of the federal government's coercive apparatus, the court's standard-setting rulings had little impact. These findings suggest the conditions under which the protection of democratic gains might be possible.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Policy\",\"volume\":\"46 4\",\"pages\":\"380-395\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lapo.12249\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lapo.12249","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国正面临一个民主极度脆弱的时代。最高法院通常被理解为一个关键的反多数制机构,常常阻碍民主化进程。但从跨部门的角度来看,我们发现最高法院在美国民主化进程中的作用比人们通常认识到的要大得多。一般来说,国家权力是克服反民主的次国家政策的必要条件,而国家权力既需要制定标准,也需要强制。通过使用最高法院关于公民权利和种族平等裁决的原始数据集,我们发现最高法院比人们通常理解的更早也更一贯地支持种族民主化,但在缺乏联邦政府其他强制机构合作的情况下,法院的标准设定裁决影响甚微。这些发现提出了保护民主成果的可能条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Courts, the state, and democratization in the United States

The United States is facing an era of acute democratic fragility. The Supreme Court is often understood as a key countermajoritarian institution that often impedes democratization. But adopting an interbranch perspective, we show that the court has been a stronger champion of democratization in the United States than is typically recognized. National power has generally been necessary to overcome antidemocratic subnational policy, and national state power requires both standard setting and coercion. Using an original dataset of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights and racial equality, we show that the court was an earlier and more consistent champion of racial democratization than is generally understood but that in the absence of cooperation from the rest of the federal government's coercive apparatus, the court's standard-setting rulings had little impact. These findings suggest the conditions under which the protection of democratic gains might be possible.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
15.40%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: International and interdisciplinary in scope, Law & Policy embraces varied research methodologies that interrogate law, governance, and public policy worldwide. Law & Policy makes a vital contribution to the current dialogue on contemporary policy by publishing innovative, peer-reviewed articles on such critical topics as • government and self-regulation • health • environment • family • gender • taxation and finance • legal decision-making • criminal justice • human rights
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Does racial impact statement reform reduce Black–White disparities in imprisonment: Mixed methods evidence from Minnesota Stewards, defenders, progenitors, and collaborators: Courts in the age of democratic decline Judicial transformation in a competitive authoritarian regime: Evidence from the Turkish case Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1