Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Judges (2)
- Judicial power (2)
- Judicial process (2)
- US Supreme Court (2)
- Appellate courts (1)
-
- Article III judges (1)
- Circuit courts (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Elections (1)
- Empirical evidence (1)
- Evidence and judicial attention (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal judges (1)
- Frank-Shapley index (1)
- Judgments (1)
- Judicial decision-making (1)
- Judicial independence (1)
- Judicial performance (1)
- Judicial politics (1)
- Legal research (1)
- Procedure (1)
- Voting behavior (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Altering Attention In Adjudication, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachinski, Andrew J. Wistrich
Altering Attention In Adjudication, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachinski, Andrew J. Wistrich
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Judges decide complex cases in rapid succession but are limited by cognitive constraints. Consequently judges cannot allocate equal attention to every aspect of a case. Case outcomes might thus depend on which aspects of a case are particularly salient to the judge. Put simply, a judge focusing on one aspect of a case might reach a different outcome than a judge focusing on another. In this Article, we report the results of a series of studies exploring various ways in which directing judicial attention can shape judicial outcomes. In the first study, we show that judges impose shorter sentences when …
Chief Judges: The Limits Of Attitudinal Theory And Possible Paradox Of Managerial Judging, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon
Chief Judges: The Limits Of Attitudinal Theory And Possible Paradox Of Managerial Judging, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Chief judges wield power. Among other things, they control judicial assignments, circulate petitions to their colleagues, and manage internal requests and disputes. When exercising this power, do chiefs seek to serve as impartial court administrators or do they attempt to manufacture case outcomes that reflect their political beliefs? Because chiefs exercise their power almost entirely outside public view, no one knows. No one sees the chief judge change the composition of a panel before it is announced or delay consideration of a petition for en banc review or favor the requests of some colleagues while ignoring those of others. Chiefs …
The Most Dangerous Justice Rides Into The Sunset, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen
The Most Dangerous Justice Rides Into The Sunset, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
In this essay, our third and last in a series, we employ our previously developed techniques to measure the power of the Justices in the Rehnquist Court over its full 11 year run. Once again, Justice Kennedy rises to the top of our rankings, as he had done earlier. Our methods identify Justices Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg as being notable either for their influence or lack thereof. In addition, we rejoin the debate on the connection between being the median justice and being the most powerful one. We question whether even the most sophisticated methods of finding the median justice …
Empirical Measures Of Judicial Performance: An Introduction To The Symposium, Jim Rossi, Steven G. Gey
Empirical Measures Of Judicial Performance: An Introduction To The Symposium, Jim Rossi, Steven G. Gey
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Inspired by the burgeoning empirical literature on the judiciary, the editors of the Florida State University Law Review have solicited some papers from leading scholars and federal courts of appeals judges, asking them to address the topic of empirical measures of judicial performance. The papers in this "Symposium on Empirical Measures of Judicial Performance" address empirical measures of judicial performance from a variety of methodological perspectives, but as this Foreword suggests, they can roughly be organized around three basic themes. First, many of the papers critique the empirical enterprise itself and especially the tournament strategy for evaluating judges, although these …
Judicial Independence And The Ambiguity Of Article Iii Protections, Tracey E. George
Judicial Independence And The Ambiguity Of Article Iii Protections, Tracey E. George
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Is the federal judiciary truly an independent body? A quick glance at the Constitution would suggest the answer is yes. The Constitution provides for life tenure and a difficult removal process for federal judges that together, as the common wisdom goes, shield federal judges from the shifting winds of the more political branches and the public at large. The author of this essay argues, however, that on a closer examination of the protections provided for by the Constitution, judicial independence might be more mirage than truism. Threats to judicial independence arise not only externally through the actions of the other …
Deciphering Courts Of Appeals Decisions Using The U.S. Courts Of Appeals Data Base, Tracey E. George, Reginald S. Sheehan
Deciphering Courts Of Appeals Decisions Using The U.S. Courts Of Appeals Data Base, Tracey E. George, Reginald S. Sheehan
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Is one circuit significantly more conservative or liberal than the others? Do circuit courts consistently avoid deciding the substance of certain appeals by concluding that the plaintiffs lack standing? Have state governments been more successful than other parties when they appeal adverse district court rulings? Do appeals courts act in a majoritarian or countermajoritarian manner with regard to elected institutions and the general public? The United States Courts of Appeals Data Base, an extensive data set of courts of appeals decisions, can address these and other questions about the circuit courts. This article describes the background, scope, and content of …
The Most Dangerous Justice: The Supreme Court At The Bar Of Mathematics, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen
The Most Dangerous Justice: The Supreme Court At The Bar Of Mathematics, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
We analyze the relative voting power of the Justices based upon Supreme Court decisions during October Term 1994 and October Term 1995. We take two approaches, both based on ideas derived from cooperative game theory. One of the measures we use has been used in connection with voting rights cases. After naming the Most Dangerous Justice, we conclude by identifying and explaining the inverse relationship between seniority and voting power.