Login

Publications  •  Project Statistics

Glossary  •  Schools  •  Disciplines
People Search: 
   
Title/Abstract Search: 

Dissertation Information for George Ivan Lovell

NAME:
- George Ivan Lovell

DEGREE:
- Ph.D.

DISCIPLINE:
- Political Science

SCHOOL:
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (USA) (1997)

ADVISORS:
- None

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
- None

MPACT Status: Incomplete - Not_Inspected

Title: Legislative deferrals and judicial policymaking in American labor law

Abstract: "In the first third of the twentieth century, Congress several times responded to demands from labor organizations by passing legislation. However, labor's efforts to secure favorable policies were thwarted by judges who made decisions that reversed the apparent goals of reform legislation. Existing accounts see such judicial decisions as the result of the institutional independence of the courts, independence that threatens democratic accountability and that contributed to the development of a weak labor movement in the United States.

This study looks in detail at legislative decisions made in connection with the Erdman Act (1898), the Clayton Act (1914), the Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932), and the Wagner Act (1935). The study challenges existing accounts of these cases and shows that the conventional theoretical framework for understanding interbranch interaction and separation of powers is inadequate for understanding the complexity of relations between the courts, Congress, and interest groups. The conventional framework sees the courts and Congress as acting in isolation of each other. This study shows that the courts were able to make policy not because of their institutional independence but because of deliberate decisions in Congress to pass ambiguous legislation that assigned policy decisions to the courts. The courts played the largest role in cases where members of Congress were compelled to take symbolic legislative action but divided about which policies to pursue. The courts were important not because they reversed congressional policies but because the availability of judges for settling interpretive controversies made it easier for elected officials to respond to labor's demands with symbolic but ineffective actions.

The four case studies also suggest that passage of legislation cannot always be taken as an indication of Congress's commitment to a particular policy outcome or of the political strength of the organized groups that sponsor legislation. Participants in legislative processes are often more concerned with the effect of a statute on the way interest groups are organized than with a statute's immediate effects on policies."

MPACT Scores for George Ivan Lovell

A = 0
C = 1
A+C = 1
T = 0
G = 0
W = 0
TD = 0
TA = 0
calculated 2008-01-31 06:30:19

Advisors and Advisees Graph