No description available.

No description available.

America is diverse in its culture of ideas and ways of life. This makes for a complex negotiation of issue positions and justifications when attempting to resolve public issues. It is essential therefore, that organizations not only understand but also cater to and adapt to the variety of cultural expectations and interpretations that may guide their various stakeholder publics when creating messages about controversial issues. One of the most controversial issues our society faces today is affirmative action. The rationales for the different stances people take on this topic vary greatly, revealing both opportunities and barriers to resolve a long-standing, contentious political issue. This thesis describes and analyzes reactions to two 2003 Supreme Court cases that examined the University of Michigan's affirmative action admissions policies: Gratz, et al. v. Bollinger, et al. and Grutter et al v. Bollinger, et al. The cases were the first time the Supreme Court had addressed affirmative action since the 1978 Bakke case. It was also the first time that the Court would debate whether or not diversity is truly a compelling state interest and what constitutes a fair and legal process by which to achieve it. Mediated accounts of the debate were examined in order to offer insight into contemporary interpretations of a recurring issue. By looking at how the media framed the issue, policymakers, politically-involved citizens, public relations practitioners can better understand the political climate in which they work, and thereby allowing them to better craft their communication efforts. Cultural Topoi, developed from Cultural Theory was used as a lens through which to examine the complexity of American political principles in these cases and values in this changing landscape of social expectations and public policy. / Master of Arts

Studies of the Supreme Court consistently show that the Office of the Solicitor General enjoys remarkable success before the Supreme Court, both at the certiorari stage and at the merits stage. These studies offer a variety of explanations for Solicitor General success, but fail to portray accurately the Office of the Solicitor General and to account for variations in governmental success. This paper seeks to continue the exploration of governmental success. By looking at the Office of the Solicitor General as a series of individuals with distinct characteristics rather than as a single entity, and by accounting for various situational dynamics, I attempt to explain the variations in executive success.

This study has two purposes: first, to test the validity of the personal attribute model in explaining judicial voting behavior outside its original cultural context; second, to explain the variation in justice's voting behavior in the Canadian Supreme Court. For the most part, the result arrived in this study supports the validity of the model in cross-cultural analysis. The result of multiple regression analysis shows that four variables, region, judicial experience prior to appointment, political party of appointing Prime Minister, and tenure account for 60 percent of the variations in justice's voting behavior. This result, hence, provides an empirical finding to the development of the personal attribute model in explaining justices' voting behavior.

This study analyzes activist behavior of Supreme Court justices in 132 decisions which struck down congressional statutes as unconstitutional in 1789-1990. Analysis of the justices' activist rates and liberalism scores demonstrate that these votes are ideologically based. Integrated models containing personal attribute and case factor variables are constructed to explore the votes as activist behavior. The same models are also tested with a new dependent variable constructed to measure the nullification votes as liberal votes. The models which explain the votes as ideological responses better explain the votes than the models which explain the votes as activism or restraint. The attribute variables offer better explanation in the late 20th century models and the case factors offer better explanation in the early period models.

The Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, a 2016 landmark religious liberty case, illustrates the ongoing debate between religious non-profit organizations and the government regarding the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Although the Little Sisters, in part because of their public relations and political advantages, received a relatively favorable outcome at the Supreme Court, their true successes lie on their impact on conservative politics and on the 2016 election. The Little Sisters became a significant component of political and religious leaders’ strategy to reframe the issue.

This study examines the agenda setting and decision-making behavior of the United States Supreme Court from 1888 to 1989.

This investigation sought to identify linkages between the Texas Supreme Court and public opinion through 1) a matching of written decisions with scientifically conducted public opinion polls; 2) direct mention of public opinion and its synonyms in Texas justices' decisions; 3) comparison of these mentions over time; and 4) comparison of 10 personal attributes of justices with matched decisions. The study moved the unit of analysis from the U.S. Supreme Court to the state court level by using classification schemes and attribute models previously applied to the U.S. Supreme Court. It determined that linkages exist between the Texas Supreme Court's written decisions and public opinion from 1978 to July 1994.

This study will remain with the role of the Supreme Court, and then only with its role in the character of interpretation as far as the necessitation of a new type of police power is concerned.