Partisan Agendas Research Articles

Principle, Pragmatism, and Paralysis: Stanley Fish on Free Speech

Unlike those who read Fish as declaring that free speech is an illusion or incoherent, I argue that Fish provides a superior explanation of what makes free speech possible, and a more insightful description of what judges are doing when they decide cases under laws which protect it. In this paper I first identify the central philosophical commitment from which Fish derives most of his controversial positions. Next, I demonstrate how his position on free speech in particular flows from this central philosophical commitment. Finally, in the main section of the paper, I consider three serious objections to Fish’s analysis of free speech, and consider how Fish might respond to them. I seek to defend Fish's denial that the relationship between freedom and constraint is one of simple opposition; rather he claims that constraint is the precondition for freedom. He therefore sees all speech as made under conditions of constraint. He also sees a commitment to censoring some speech as inherently contained within any commitment to freedom of speech, and so toleration of all viewpoints is impossible. He denies that any free speech principle can be neutral regarding viewpoints, and he denies that any "free market of ideas" is without bias and exclusions. He therefore rejects the accounts given by American courts deciding cases under the First Amendment which stress a fidelity to neutral principle. Since there are no such principles in existence, such courts are really doing one of two things. Either they are pragmatically advancing a partisan agenda, and constraining some speech in a way which is obfuscated, or their false belief in the existence of neutral principles paralyses them in the face of danger and prevents them from performing this pragmatic exercise.

How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875–1891

This case study of late-nineteenth century federal courts in the United States sheds light on two seemingly unrelated questions of general interest to political scientists: What tools are available to party leaders who seek to institutionalize their policy agendas or insulate those agendas from electoral politics? and How do we account for expansions of judicial power? Using an historical–interpretive analysis of partisan agendas, party control of national institutions, congressional initiatives relating to federal courts, the appointment of federal judges, judicial decision making, and litigation patterns, I demonstrate that the increased power, jurisdiction, and conservatism of federal courts during this period was a by-product of Republican Party efforts to promote and entrench a policy of economic nationalism during a time when that agenda was vulnerable to electoral politics. In addition to offering an innovative interpretation of these developments, I discuss the implications arising from this case study for our standard accounts of partisan politics, political development, and the determinants of judicial decision making.

Yeats, the Irish Literary Revival and the Politics of Print

Examines the relationship between Yeats, Irish literary nationalism and the publishing industry during the Irish Literary Revival in the late Nineteenth Century. It highlights the factors that shaped Yeats Irish literary nationalism and examines the way he continually modified his journalism and poetry to accommodate the often antagonistic perspectives of his Catholic, Protestant and Unionist editors and readers on contemporary political and cultural issues.Yeats' texts are read not just as aesthetic artifacts but as documents of their time, caught in the complexities of Irish politics and literary nationalism and influenced by fiercely partisan editorial advocacy and agendas. In doing so it illustrates that the standards bequeathed by Yeats' Celtic nationalism can be radically revised. This books sheds new light on the Irish Literary Revival which was propagated through the periodical press.By reinserting Yeats' texts into their environment of primary publication, and rereading them in the contexts for which they were first written, this study significantly enhances our understanding of that time. It casts an entirely new light on a text's meaning and significance, and poses radical challenges to the established canon.

Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas

The importance of lower federal courts in the policymaking process has stimulated extensive research programs focused on the process of selecting the judges of these courts and the factors influencing their decisions. The present study employs judicial decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals as a window through which to reexamine the politics of selection to the lower courts. It differs from previous studies of selection in three ways. First, it takes advantage of recent innovations in measurement to go beyond reliance on political party as a measure of the preferences of actors in the selection process. Second, employing these new measures it examines the relative effects of the operation of policy and partisan agendas in the selection process. Third, a more complex model of selection is assessed than in most previous studies-one that expressly examines the role of senators and senatorial preferences in the selection process. The results clearly suggest that the politics of selection differ dramatically depending upon whether or not senatorial courtesy is in operation. The voting behavior of Courts of Appeals judges selected without senatorial courtesy is consistent with the operation of a presidential policy agenda. Among judges selected when senatorial courtesy is in play, the linkage between presidential preferences and judicial outcomes disappears.

Constituency Characteristics and the "Guardian" Model of Appropriations Subcommittees, 1959-1998

In this paper I examine the composition of ten House Appropriations subcommittees from 1959-1998 and explore the extent to which these subcommittees are comprised of members who have specific constituency needs for the benefits supplied by programs under their jurisdiction. Congressional scholars have suggested several different patterns for the constituency bias of these panels, and I study whether we can confirm or reject portions of the and models of Appropriations subcommittee composition. Using extensive data on the district characteristics of all legislators for nearly 40 years, along with a Monte Carlo simulation technique for examining difference in medians, I find that several Appropriations subcommittees are composed of members with disproportionately high need for the benefits under their control. I also find that while there was a shift toward more advocacy on these panels in the early 1960s, there have been few changes in this trend since. The Republican takeover of Congress in 1995 only marginally altered the group of subcommittees that attracted high need members. The findings of this study lend some credence to distributive notions of congressional committee composition. esearch on the Appropriations committees in Congress has primarily focused on two questions which are at the core of positive theories of legislative structure: what kind of members are assigned to these panels and what role do these committees play in the policy process? Recent scholarship has emphasized partisan explanations for the composition and functions of Appropriations committees and subcommittees (Aldrich and Rohde 1996; Kiewiet and McCubbins 1991). However, the conventional wisdom concerning the composition of Appropriations has varied considerably over time. At different periods members have been considered budget cutting guardians of the federal treasury, reelectionminded claimants on government funds, or point-people for the pursuit of a partisan agenda. I focus here on the question of Appropriations subcommittee composition and leave the issue of legislative outputs aside for the moment. I first examine how well the differing perceptions of Appropriations members map onto the existing theories of legislative structure. Then, to test the primary conflict between the guardian and claimant theories, I study the composition of ten House Appropriations subcommittees from 1959 to 1998 and explore the extent to which these subcommittees are comprised of members whose constituents demand the benefits supplied by programs under their jurisdiction.' Unlike most previous studies of Appropriations subcommittees (or even full authorizing committees) that have analyzed the question of committee preferences by examining ideology scores (ADA,

Congressional redistricting and African-American representation in the 1990s: an example from Alabama

Abstract The decennial process of redrawing US congressional districts in 1991–1992 contrasted greatly with that occurring a decade ago. In light of amendments to the Voting Rights Act and court decisions, some traditional redistricting criteria were substantially devalued. After equal population, the criterion of racial or ethnic fairness is now the dominant consideration. This paper uses Alabama, a state not having elected a minority to Congress in over a century, as an example of the far-reaching impact of these changes. It finds the redistricting process was heavily influenced by partisan agendas, racial politics and substantial and continuing confusion over the demands of the Voting Rights Act.

Technological Change, Sexuality, and Family Futures Planning

Planning for both future social, scientific and medical research and for the challenges and changes we will confront as a result of sexological research and reproductive/contraceptive tech-nology requires consideration of four areas of special concern: (1) contraception, (2) reproductive technologies, (3) gender differences, and (4) sexual relationships. In each of these four areas examples are provided illustrating the political, activist, and religous uses and abuses of data to promote partisan views and agendas. Planning for a more humane future requires continual, skeptical, careful, and open dialogue because it will often be impossible to anticipate or define the problems in advance, and weigh the likely costs and benefits of individual and societal options.