Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPastore, Matthew
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-27T20:13:23Z
dc.date.available2017-04-27T20:13:23Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-27
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2144/21807
dc.description.abstractThis paper explores how throughout American history, a divide in opinion has formed between the class of political elites who occupy positions of power within our government, and the average American. Historical analyses have shown that the Supreme Court has been repeatedly politicized to benefit politicians and activists alike, though evidence shows that there is very little support for these types of behaviors in the public at large. Furthermore, a survey was conducted to ascertain whether the observed divide still exists within modern America, which provides insight into the current political stand-off that has taken place over who will the seat on the Supreme Court vacated by Antonin Scalia. Ultimately, the results reaffirm the existence of a two track incentive structure as it relates to the Supreme Court and nomination politics. This method allows us to examine historical developments and buttress them with modern data analyses to improve upon vague arguments solely concerned with nonpartisanship as it relates to the Judiciary in the modern era. It becomes clear that, in spite of realignment and institutional change, patterns of court politicization do not abate.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectSupreme Court of the United Statesen_US
dc.subjectGovernmenten_US
dc.subjectPublicen_US
dc.titleThe story of Supreme Court politicization: The mass public v elite divideen_US
dc.typeThesis/Dissertationen_US
etd.degree.nameBachelor of Artsen_US
etd.degree.levelbachelorsen_US
etd.degree.disciplinePolitical Scienceen_US
etd.degree.grantorBoston Universityen_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record