{"id":{"repo_id":"unt","oai_identifier":"info:ark/67531/metadc3106"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/unt/info:ark/67531/metadc3106","repository":{"repo_id":"unt","name":"University of North Texas","base_url":"https://digital.library.unt.edu/oai/"},"display":{"title":"Strategic Versus Sincere Behavior: The Impact of Issue Salience and Congress on the Supreme Court Docket","abstract":"The theory proposed here is that the Supreme Court behaves in a strategic manner at the agenda-setting stage in order to vote sincerely on the merits. To test this, I measure the impact issue salience and ideological distance between Congress and the Supreme Court has on the agenda. The results indicate that whether the Supreme Court behaves either sincerely or strategically depends on the policy area. The strategic nature of the Supreme Court at the agenda-setting phase may be in large part why some research shows that the Court behaves sincerely when voting on the merits. By behaving strategically at the agenda-setting phase, the Court is free to vote sincerely in later parts of the judicial process.","abstract_html":"The theory proposed here is that the Supreme Court behaves in a strategic manner at the agenda-setting stage in order to vote sincerely on the merits. To test this, I measure the impact issue salience and ideological distance between Congress and the Supreme Court has on the agenda. The results indicate that whether the Supreme Court behaves either sincerely or strategically depends on the policy area. The strategic nature of the Supreme Court at the agenda-setting phase may be in large part why some research shows that the Court behaves sincerely when voting on the merits. By behaving strategically at the agenda-setting phase, the Court is free to vote sincerely in later parts of the judicial process.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Williams, Jeffrey David"],"institution":"University of North Texas","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Feigert, Frank","Smith, Donald Wiley","Forde, Steven"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2002,"date_issued":"2002-05","date_published":"2002-05","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:34:52Z","subjects":["United States. Supreme Court.","Judicial process -- United States.","Supreme Court","Congress","agenda setting","issue salience","strategic/sincere behavior"],"languages":["English"],"rights":["Public","Copyright","Williams, Jeffrey David","Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["oclc: 54888961","https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc3106/","ark: ark:/67531/metadc3106"],"render_values":[{"text":"oclc: 54888961","href":null,"code":true},{"text":"https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc3106/","href":"https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc3106/","code":true},{"text":"ark: ark:/67531/metadc3106","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.12794/metadc3106","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Feigert, Frank","Smith, Donald Wiley","Forde, Steven"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Williams, Jeffrey David"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2002-05"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["University of North Texas"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis or Dissertation"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["United States. Supreme Court.","Judicial process -- United States.","Supreme Court","Congress","agenda setting","issue salience","strategic/sincere behavior"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["English"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Public","Copyright","Williams, Jeffrey David","Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["oclc: 54888961","doi: 10.12794/metadc3106","https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc3106/","ark: ark:/67531/metadc3106"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["The theory proposed here is that the Supreme Court behaves in a strategic manner at the agenda-setting stage in order to vote sincerely on the merits. To test this, I measure the impact issue salience and ideological distance between Congress and the Supreme Court has on the agenda. The results indicate that whether the Supreme Court behaves either sincerely or strategically depends on the policy area. The strategic nature of the Supreme Court at the agenda-setting phase may be in large part why some research shows that the Court behaves sincerely when voting on the merits. By behaving strategically at the agenda-setting phase, the Court is free to vote sincerely in later parts of the judicial process."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["Text"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Strategic Versus Sincere Behavior: The Impact of Issue Salience and Congress on the Supreme Court Docket"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Feigert, Frank","Smith, Donald Wiley","Forde, Steven"],"dc:creator":["Williams, Jeffrey David"],"dc:date":["2002-05"],"dc:description":["The theory proposed here is that the Supreme Court behaves in a strategic manner at the agenda-setting stage in order to vote sincerely on the merits. To test this, I measure the impact issue salience and ideological distance between Congress and the Supreme Court has on the agenda. The results indicate that whether the Supreme Court behaves either sincerely or strategically depends on the policy area. The strategic nature of the Supreme Court at the agenda-setting phase may be in large part why some research shows that the Court behaves sincerely when voting on the merits. By behaving strategically at the agenda-setting phase, the Court is free to vote sincerely in later parts of the judicial process."],"dc:format":["Text"],"dc:identifier":["oclc: 54888961","doi: 10.12794/metadc3106","https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc3106/","ark: ark:/67531/metadc3106"],"dc:language":["English"],"dc:publisher":["University of North Texas"],"dc:rights":["Public","Copyright","Williams, Jeffrey David","Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved."],"dc:subject":["United States. Supreme Court.","Judicial process -- United States.","Supreme Court","Congress","agenda setting","issue salience","strategic/sincere behavior"],"dc:title":["Strategic Versus Sincere Behavior: The Impact of Issue Salience and Congress on the Supreme Court Docket"],"dc:type":["Thesis or Dissertation"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:34:52Z"}