Oregon's Emerging Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) Industry: A Literature Review and Three Case Studies of Sugaring Operations

This capstone report provides an overview of the emergence of the bigleaf maple sugaring industry in Oregon. This report consists of a literature review and three case studies. The literature review compiles information relevant to bigleaf maple sugaring within the wider context of maple sugaring in North America. The three case studies detail the activities of the private landowners who are pioneering the bigleaf maple sugaring industry in Oregon

A Statistical Look at the Supreme Court\u27s 2009 Team

Whether a change in membership occurs or not, every Supreme Court term presents a unique set of controversies and decisions for legal scholars to examine. Herein, we offer a discussion of the Court\u27s recently completed 2009-2010 term. Rather than analyzing specific opinions in detail (as many have already done), we generate a comprehensive statistical analysis of justice voting behavior for the term. In particular, we examine consensus and division on the Court, the ideological tenor of the term, voting alignments among the justices, the production of opinions, and the Court\u27s overall ideological spectrum based on individual voting patterns. Ultimately, we also assess the ramifications of our findings for the future study of judicial behavior

Trends in Public Opinion, 1989-1996

In this chapter, we examine the party identifications and ideological orientations of Tennesseans from 1989 through 1996, as revealed through survey research. We also look at Tennesseans\u27 positions on several issues of public policy that have been salient in state politics during this period. Our intent is to isolate any trends in the partisan and ideological character of the state while examining citizens\u27 positions on key issues

Baker Center Journal of Applied Public Policy - Vol. IV, No. I

This is the 4th volume of the Baker Center Journal on Applied Public Policy. It includes articles on nuclear nonproliferation, American political development, election issues, Tennessee state trial courts, attitudes related to rich and poor people, and two student articles on science, innovation, technology and economic growth and explosive trace detection at airports

Baker Center Journal of Applied Public Policy, Vol. I No. I

Welcome to the first issue of the Baker Center Journal of Applied Public Policy. Throughout my many years of service, I always have been impressed with the tremendous good that can be accomplished through the creation and implementation of sound public policy. I hope that, along the way, I have contributed to the body of policies that help our nation function in a strong, effective, compassionate, and prosperous fashion. As we launch this new Journal, under the auspices of the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennnnessee, I wanted to briefly expand on some of the reasons I believe that this journal is necessary and why I believe that research on public policy is so vitally important. This Journal aims to discuss applied public policy. The goal is not to engage in theoretical discussions, though I believe those are important. Instead, we hope that the Baker Journal will focus on the most current issues that directly affect our nation and our world on the operational, or mechanical level. We intend to engage a wide variety of contributors. Scholars, of course, will be asked to write on critical topics of research. We also aim to include contributions from those who draft, approve and execute public policy at the local, state, and national levels. Additionally, at least one article in each issue will be reserved for the work of a university-level student. Our approach is varied, and I know that the result will be an intellectually sound and extraordinarily interesting presentation of experiences and ideas.I am especially pleased that so many University of Tennnnessee students are involved in the formulation and operation of the Journal. Our editorial board is comprised of some of the University of Tennnnessee’s most promising undergraduate, graduate, and law school students. With dedicated assistance and oversight from faculty and from the Baker Center, this board of extraordinarily intelligent and committed students has worked very hard to make this Journal a reality. The Center has also formed a national advisory panel for the Journal. I am a member of that panel, and I must note that I am grateful for the involvement and support of my colleagues who have agreed to serve with me: Ms. Emily Reynolds, former Secretary of the United States Senate; Congressman Bob Clement, former Tennnnessee Congressman; Mr. Glennnn Reynolds, noted author and professor of law at the University of Tennnnessee; Dr. Joseph Cooper, an accomplished professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University; and Mr. John Seigenthaler, distinguished journalist and founder and director of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. I believe it is critical that we think deeply about the issues that are confronting us today. Our representative system of governance is based on an informed citizenry and informed public servants. From international issues such as the war on terror and energy challenges to more local but equally important topics such as sustainable development and education, we must commit ourselves to understanding all challenges free of partisan rhetoric. Only then can we confront them together. It is my hope that this Journal will add to that understanding and will speak to many audiences. From the classroom to the boardroom, from city hall to the halls of our legislatures, I believe the work put forward in our journal will be useful for everyone who wants to be informed and engaged. It is an exciting undertaking, and I thank you for your support

Naming Names: The Impact of Supreme Court Opinion Attribution on Citizen Assessment of Policy Outcomes

The manner in which political institutions convey their policy outcomes can have important implications for how the public views institutions\u27 policy decisions. This paper explores whether the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court communicates its policy decrees affects how favorably members of the public assess its decisions. Specifically, we investigate whether attributing a decision to the nation\u27s High Court or to an individual justice influences the public\u27s agreement with the Court\u27s rulings. Using an experimental design, we find that when a Supreme Court outcome is ascribed to the institution as a whole, rather than to a particular justice, people are more apt to agree with the policy decision. We also find that identifying the gender of the opinion author affects public agreement under certain conditions. Our findings have important implications for how public support for institutional policymaking operates, as well as the dynamics of how the Supreme Court manages to accumulate and maintain public goodwill

The Rule of Law is Dead! Long Live the Rule of Law!

Polls show that a significant proportion of the public considers judges to be political. This result holds whether Americans are asked about Supreme Court justices, federal judges, state judges, or judges in general. At the same time, a large majority of the public also believes that judges are fair and impartial arbiters, and this belief also applies across the board. In this paper, I consider what this half-law-half-politics understanding of the courts means for judicial legitimacy and the public confidence on which that legitimacy rests. Drawing on the Legal Realists, and particularly on the work of Thurman Arnold, I argue against the notion that the contradictory views must be resolved in order for judicial legitimacy to remain intact. A rule of law built on contending legal and political beliefs is not necessarily fair or just. But it can be stable. At least in the context of law and courts, a house divided may stand

Criminal law and procedure, 8th ed./ Scheb

xxv, 804 p.: ill.; 25 cm

Criminal law and procedure, 8th ed./ Scheb

xxv, 804 p.: ill.; 25 cm

Radical Discrimination in the Death Penalty in Tennessee: An Empirical Assessment

The intense media coverage of the United States Supreme Court\u27s recent decisions in Baze v. Rees\u27 and Kennedy v. Louisiana highlights the ongoing saliency of the death penalty in American politics. In this article, we use empirical evidence to shed light on this controversy. Our analysis utilizes data from 1,068 first-degree murder convictions rendered in Tennessee between 1977 and 2007. The questions animating our research are: 1) What factors led prosecutors to seek the death penalty? and 2) What factors led juries to impose it? In particular, we are interested in the role that race plays in these decisions. Does the system operate in a racially-neutral fashion, or is it hopelessly infected with discrimination, as some prior studies in other states have suggested