Overruled?: Legislative Overrides, Pluralism, and Contemporary Court-Congress Relations
“In providing us with a careful and detailed picture of the realities, Barnes has taken an important step in the “modeling dialogue” among theorists and empiricists that will hopefully push us towards a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of congressional-judicial relations.”—The Law and Politics Book Review\ “Barnes has significantly advanced our understanding of the separation of powers, and in doing so, has made a persuasive case that our political system may be healthier than we...
Search in google:
Barnes (political science, U. of Southern California) explores 100 cases of Congressional "overrides" of judicial decisions (legislation designed overcome judicial outcomes or resolve legal contradictions) and uses the data to test three competing views of congressional- judicial institutional interaction. Their work supports the view of pluralist theorists who see overrides as typically increasing judicial consensus and resulting from open processes, contradicting capture theorists who view the process as being unfairly tilted in favor of repeat players. The authors find the process to be occasionally hyperpluralistic, leading to confusion and the failure to resolve issues Congress was attempting to address. Annotation ©2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
Tables and FiguresAcknowledgments1The Questions, Debate, and Overview12Overrides in Contemporary U.S. Policy-Making: Promise and Current Understanding31Pt. IDo Overrides Matter?3Assumptions and Hypotheses584Data, Methods, and Findings76Pt. IIWhat Patterns of Court-Congress Relations Underlie the Override Process?5A Typology of Override Scenarios1006Operationalization of Typology, Findings, and Discussion1367Under What Conditions...? Patterns and Hypotheses159Conclusion1858Broader Implications and Avenues for Future Inquiry186AppSummary of Overrides Analyzed197Index210
