Welcome to our book review site go-pdf.online!
You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Battle over the Bench
Who gets seated on the lower federal courts and why? Why are some nominees confirmed easily while others travel a long, hard road to confirmation? What role do senators and interest groups play in determining who will become a federal judge? The lower federal courts have increasingly become the final arbiters of the important political and social issues of the day. As a result, who gets seated on the bench has become a major political issue. In Battle over the Bench, Amy Steigerwalt argues that the key to understanding the dynamics of the lower court confirmation process is to examine the process itself. She offers a new analytic framework for understanding when nominations become contested,...
Gendered Vulnerability
Analysis-driven study of female candidates and how they represent their constituents better than their male colleagues
It's Not Personal
In order to be confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, all district and circuit court nominees must appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing. Despite their relatively low profile, these lower court judges make up 99 percent of permanent federal judgeships and decide cases that relate to a wide variety of policy areas. To uncover why senators hold confirmation hearings for lower federal court nominees and the value of these proceedings more generally, the authors analyzed transcripts for all district and circuit court confirmation hearings between 1993 and 2012, the largest systematic analysis of lower court confirmation hearings to date. The b...
The Puzzle of Unanimity
The U.S. Supreme Court typically rules on cases that present complex legal questions. Given the challenging nature of its cases and the popular view that the Court is divided along ideological lines, it's commonly assumed that the Court routinely hands down equally-divided decisions. Yet the justices actually issue unanimous decisions in approximately one third of the cases they decide. Drawing on data from the U.S. Supreme Court database, internal court documents, and the justices' private papers, The Puzzle of Unanimity provides the first comprehensive account of how the Court reaches consensus. Pamela Corley, Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward propose and empirically test a theory of consensus; they find consensus is a function of multiple, concurrently-operating forces that cannot be fully accounted for by ideological attitudes. In this thorough investigation, the authors conclude that consensus is a function of the level of legal certainty and its ability to constrain justices' ideological preferences.
When Dissents Matter
The ability of US Supreme Court justices to dissent from the majority, to formally register and explain their belief that a case has been wrongly decided, represents a time-honored tradition of perhaps the most august American institution. Yet the impact of these dissents, which allow justices to engage in a dialogue over law and policy, has seldom, if ever, been the focus of dedicated study. Analyzing the influence of past dissents on later Supreme Court majority opinions, this book presents the first comprehensive study of the effects of dissenting opinions and illuminates which types of dissents successfully influence legal and policy debates, which ones fail to make a difference, and why. Drawing on the private papers of the justices and original data, this book demonstrates that court majorities engage with dissents posing a particular threat to their opinions, and that they can be persuaded by thoughtful and careful dissenting arguments.
Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court cannot be both efficient and consistent, and thus fails in its Constitutional mandate
American Public Opinion and the Modern Supreme Court, 1930-2020
The United States Supreme Court is commonly thought to be an institution far removed from American public opinion. Yet nearly two-thirds of modern Supreme Court decisions reflect popular attitudes. Comparing over 500 Supreme Court decisions with timely nationwide poll questions since the mid-1930s, Thomas R. Marshall shows that most Supreme Court decisions agree with poll majorities or pluralities across time and across issues and often represent Americans’ views to the same degree as federal policymakers. This book looks beyond the litigants, economic interests, social movements, organized interest groups, or units of governments typically involved and instead examines how well the Court or the justices represent Americans’ views. Using nationwide public opinion, broken down by key subgroups, race, gender, education, and party affiliation, better describes exactly whom Supreme Court decisions and the justices’ individual votes best represent. His book will be of interest to scholars in political science, legal studies, history, and sociology.
Race, Gender, Sexuality, and the Politics of the American Judiciary
Makes a significant contribution to substantive representation, and examines the various political identities of justices in the American political system.
Constitutional Powers and Politics
The relationship between public opinion and the actions of institutions such as the Supreme Court has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. In this timely book, Eileen Braman explores how American citizens think about government across all three branches, applying a rigorous political scientific methodology to explore why citizens may support potentially risky changes to our governing system. As Braman highlights, Americans value institutions that they perceive as delivering personal and societal gains, and citizens who see these institutions as delivering potential losses are more supportive of fundamental constitutional change. In the face of growing resentment of government and recurring warnings of constitutional crisis, Braman offers a hopeful note: her findings suggest that politicians can channel discontent toward meaningful reform and the healthy evolution of our democratic system.
The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior
"[This book offers] an introduction and analysis of research regarding decision making by judges serving on federal and state courts in the U.S...[This handbook] describes and explains how the courts' political and social context, formal institutional structures, and informal norms affect judicial decision making. The Handbook also explores the impact of judges' personal attributes and preferences, as well as prevailing legal doctrine, influence, and shape case outcomes in state and federal courts. The volume also proposes avenues for future research in the various topics addressed throughout the book."--
