Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Judicial elections (3)
- Judges (2)
- Judicial independence (2)
- State supreme courts (2)
- Campaign contributions (1)
-
- Court room television (1)
- Courts (1)
- FRCP (1)
- Fact pleading (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Judicial Decision-Making (1)
- Judicial Politics (1)
- Judicial appointments (1)
- Judicial interpretation (1)
- Partisanship (1)
- Practice and procedure (1)
- Products liability (1)
- Quality of expert testimony (1)
- Reality television (1)
- Reappointment (1)
- Rules Enabling Act (1)
- Scientific and expert evidence (1)
- Standards of admissibility (1)
- State courts (1)
- Strategic voting (1)
- Substantive federal common law (1)
- Tellabs (1)
- Voter preferences (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Does Anyone Get Stopped At The Gate? An Empirical Assessment Of The Daubert Trilogy In The States, Eric Helland, Jonathan Klick
Does Anyone Get Stopped At The Gate? An Empirical Assessment Of The Daubert Trilogy In The States, Eric Helland, Jonathan Klick
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s trilogy of evidence cases, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire appear to mark a significant departure in the way scientific and expert evidence is handled in federal court. By focusing on the underlying methods used to generate the experts’ conclusions, Daubert has the potential to impose a more rigorous standard on experts. Given this potential, some individuals have called for states to adopt the Daubert standards to purge “junk science” from state courts. However, there is relatively little empirical support for the notion that Daubert affects the quality of expert evidence. Using a large dataset of state court …
Here Comes The Judge! Gender Distortion On Tv Reality Court Shows, Taunya Lovell Banks
Here Comes The Judge! Gender Distortion On Tv Reality Court Shows, Taunya Lovell Banks
Faculty Scholarship
In the judicial world of television court shows women constitute a majority of the judges and where non-white women and men dominate. In real life most judges are white and male. This essay looks at the gender and racial composition and demeanor of these television reality judges. It asks whether women TV reality judges behave differently from their male counterparts and whether women’s increased visibility as judges on daytime reality court shows reinforces or diminishes traditional negative stereotypes about women, especially non-white women.
Are Appointed Judges Strategic Too?, Joanna Shepherd
Are Appointed Judges Strategic Too?, Joanna Shepherd
Faculty Articles
The conventional wisdom among many legal scholars is that judicial independence can best be achieved with an appointive judiciary; judicial elections turn judges into politicians, threatening judicial autonomy. Yet the original supporters of judicial elections successfully eliminated the appointive systems of many states by arguing that judges who owed their jobs to politicians could never be truly independent. Because the judiciary could function as a check and balance on the other governmental branches only if it truly were independent of them, the reformers reasoned that only popular elections could ensure a truly independent judiciary. Using a data set of virtually …
Money, Politics, And Impartial Justice, Joanna Shepherd
Money, Politics, And Impartial Justice, Joanna Shepherd
Faculty Articles
A centuries-old controversy asks whether judicial elections are inconsistent with impartial justice. The debate is especially important because more than 90 percent of the United States’ judicial business is handled by state courts, and approximately nine in ten of all state court judges face the voters in some type of election. Using a stunning new data set of virtually all state supreme court decisions from 1995 to 1998, this paper provides empirical evidence that elected state supreme court judges routinely adjust their rulings to attract votes and campaign money. I find that judges who must be reelected by Republican voters, …
Symposium: Supreme Court Review, Symposium Foreword, Mitchell N. Berman
Symposium: Supreme Court Review, Symposium Foreword, Mitchell N. Berman
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Pleading And The Dilemmas Of “General Rules”, Stephen B. Burbank
Pleading And The Dilemmas Of “General Rules”, Stephen B. Burbank
All Faculty Scholarship
This article comments on Professor Geoffrey Miller’s article about pleading under Tellabs and goes on (1) to use Tellabs, Bell Atlantic Corp. v Twombly, and Iqbal v. Hasty (in which the Court has granted review) to illustrate the limits of, and costs created by, certain foundational assumptions and operating principles that are associated with the Rules Enabling Act’s requirement of “general rules,” and (2) more generally, to illustrate the costs of the complex procedural system that we have created. Thus, for instance, the argument that the standards emerging from Twombly should be confined to antitrust conspiracy cases confronts the foundational …
Deliberation And Strategy On The United States Courts Of Appeals: An Empirical Exploration Of Panel Effects, Pauline Kim
Deliberation And Strategy On The United States Courts Of Appeals: An Empirical Exploration Of Panel Effects, Pauline Kim
Scholarship@WashULaw
Recent studies have established that decision-making by federal court of appeals judges is influenced not only by the preferences of the judge, but also the preferences of her panel colleagues. Although the existence of these panel effects is well documented, the reasons they occur are less well understood. Scholars have proposed a number of competing theories to explain panel effects, but none has been established empirically. In this Article, I report an empirical test of two competing explanations of panel effects - one emphasizing deliberation internal to a circuit panel, the other hypothesizing strategic behavior on the part of circuit …
A Plea For Reality, Roy A. Schotland
A Plea For Reality, Roy A. Schotland
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Legend has it that a long-ago Chief Justice of Texas said, “No judicial selection system is worth a damn.” This view has been all but proven by American experience; nothing else in American law matches this subject in terms of the volume of written debate and endless sweat spent working for change. The selection system for federal judges is unchanged but far from untroubled, and
the States have never used a common method . . . . [O]ne can identify almost as many different methods . . . as there are States in the Union . . . . Moreover, …