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.
In Defense of Judicial Elections
Ought judges be independent of democratic pressures, or should they be subjected to the preferences and approval of the electorate? In this book, Bonneau and Hall use empirical data to shed light on these normative questions and offer a coherent defense of judicial elections.
Making Law and Courts Research Relevant
One of the more enduring topics of concern for empirically-oriented scholars of law and courts—and political scientists more generally—is how research can be more directly relevant to broader audiences outside of academia. A significant part of this issue goes back to a seeming disconnect between empirical and normative scholars of law and courts that has increased in recent years. Brandon L. Bartels and Chris W. Bonneau argue that being attuned to the normative implications of one’s work enhances the quality of empirical work, not to mention makes it substantially more interesting to both academics and non-academic practitioners. Their book’s mission is to examine how the normative ...
Running for Judge
Across the country, races for judgeships are becoming more and more politically contested. As a result, several states and cities are now considering judicial election reform. Running for Judge examines the increasingly contentious judicial elections over the last twenty-five years by providing a timely, insightful analysis of judicial elections. The book ties together the current state of the judicial elections literature, and presents new evidence on a wide range of important topics, including: the history of judicial elections; an understanding of the types of judicial elections; electoral competition during races; the increasing importance of campaign financing; voting in judicial electi...
Voters’ Verdicts
In Voters’ Verdicts, Chris Bonneau and Damon Cann address contemporary concerns with judicial elections by investigating factors that influence voters’ decisions in the election of state supreme court judges. Bonneau and Cann demonstrate that the move to nonpartisan elections, while it depresses political participation, does little to mute the effects of partisanship and ideology. The authors note the irony that judicial elections, often faulted for politicizing the legal process, historically represented an attempt to correct the lack of accountability in the selection of judges by appointment, since unlike appointive systems, judicial elections are at least transparent. This comprehens...
The Chief Justice
Scholars use the most advanced methods in judicial studies to examine the role of Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
Courthouse Democracy and Minority Rights
In Courthouse Democracy and Minority Rights: Same-Sex Marriage in the States, Robert J. Hume shows how increasing the democratic accountability of courts has limited the ability of judges to act as reform agents. When judges are elected, or when their decisions can be easily overturned with initiative amendment procedures, they lose the capacity to stand up for the rights of the minorities.
Strategic Behavior and Policy Choice on the U.S. Supreme Court
This book presents the first comprehensive model of policymaking by strategically-rational justices who pursue their own policy preferences in the Supreme Court's multi-stage decision-making process.
Electing Judges
A revealing and provocative study of the effects of judicial elections on state courts and public perceptions of impartiality. In Electing Judges, leading judicial politics scholar James L. Gibson responds to the growing concern that the realities of campaigning are undermining judicial independence and even the rule of law. Armed with empirical evidence, Gibson offers the most systematic and comprehensive study to date of the impact of judicial elections on public perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and the legitimacy of state courts—and his findings are both counterintuitive and controversial. Gibson finds that ordinary Americans do not conclude from campaign promises that judges are ...
Judging Inequality
Social scientists have convincingly documented soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality in the United States. Missing from this picture of rampant inequality, however, is any attention to the significant role of state law and courts in establishing policies that either ameliorate or exacerbate inequality. In Judging Inequality, political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson demonstrate the influential role of the fifty state supreme courts in shaping the widespread inequalities that define America today, focusing on court-made public policy on issues ranging from educational equity and adequacy to LGBT rights to access to justice to worker’s rights. D...
Diversifying the Courts
Examines the decisions of US presidents to appoint judges from diverse backgrounds to federal courts In Diversifying the Courts, Nancy Scherer addresses why presidents choose—or don’t choose—to diversify the federal courts by race, ethnicity, and gender. She explores how and why the issue became a bitter partisan fight in the first place, tracking the controversial history—and politics—of court diversification. Drawing on polls, political experiments, surveys and one-on-one interviews, Scherer illuminates the complicated relationship between diversity and court legitimacy. She shows us how diverse representation can positively impact perceptions of the court among women and racial minorities, while having a negative impact on the perceptions among white people and men. Ultimately, Diversifying the Courts provides insight into the impact of gender, race, and ethnicity on the courts, illuminating some of the major challenges facing the American judicial system in the years that lie ahead.
