"An excellent introduction to judicial politics as a method of analysis, the seventh edition of Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking focuses on policy in the judicial process. Rather than limiting the text to coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, G. Alan Tarr examines the judiciary as the third branch of government, and weaves four major premises throughout the text: 1. Courts in the United States have always played an important role in governing and their role has increased in recent decades; 2. Judicial policymaking is a distinctive activity; 3. Courts make policy in a variety of ways; and 4. Courts may be the objects of public policy, as well as creators"--
An excellent introduction to judicial politics as a method of analysis, the seventh edition of Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking focuses on policy in the judicial process. Rather than limiting the text to coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, G. Alan Tarr examines the judiciary as the third branch of government, and weaves four major premises throughout the text: 1) Courts in the United States have always played an important role in governing and their role has increased in recent decades; 2) Judicial policymaking is a distinctive activity; 3) Courts make policy in a variety of ways; and 4) Courts may be the objects of public policy, as well as creators. New to the Seventh Edition ■ New cases through the end of the Supreme Court’s 2018 term. ■ New case studies on the Garland-Gorsuch controversy; plea negotiation (of special relevance to the Trump administration); and the litigation over Obamacare, as well as brief coverage of the Kavanaugh confirmation. ■ Expanded coverage of the crisis in the legal profession, sentencing with attention to the rise of mass incarceration and the issue of race, constitutional interpretation and the rise of “originalism,” and same-sex marriage. ■ Updated tables and figures throughout. ■ A new online e-Resource including edited cases, a glossary of terms, and resources for further learning. This text is appropriate for all students of judicial process and policy.
For courses in courts and the judicial process; and law and society. The scope of its coverage, and its high academic quality, makes it attractive for graduate courses as well. Christopher P. Banks and David M. O'Brien wrote Courts and Judicial Policymaking to fill a need for a comprehensive textbook on law and judicial policymaking. The text provides a fresh perspective on the contemporary politics of law, courts, the legal profession, and judicial policymaking, often with an underlying comparative judicial process perspective. It covers four distinct areas: 1) What is law?; 2) How are courts organized and how do they work procedurally?; 3) What influences court access and, ultimately, judicial decision-making?; and, 4) How do courts make policy, and how is judicial authority constrained? It has relevant and contemporary analyses of literature from the political science and legal fields; and analyses from scholars who argue from the quantitative (attitudinal and strategic models) and the qualitative (new institutionalism) perspectives. It contains up-to-date charts and graphs on the organization of courts and trends in litigation, caseloads, and opinion writing, and it is appropriate for undergraduate and graduate classes. Feedback includes: "The book is extremely well written and organized, one of the smoothest textbooks I have read in terms of readability. The tables provided are a major selling point for the book - nicely summarize complex and often confusing materials." - Roger Handberg, University of Central Florida "The best feature of this manuscript is its thorough coverage of the subject matter as well as the in-depth analysis of specific topics and questions addressed in the boxed material and sidebars. Adding a comparative dimension by looking at the judicial systems and procedures of other countries is also quite novel." - Susan Mezey, Loyola University, Chicago
Judicial Behavior and Policymaking introduces students to the politics of judging, exploring why judges make the decisions they do, who has the power to influence judicial decision-making, and what the consequences of court decisions are for policymaking. Further, this text familiarizes students with the methods that professional political scientists use to conduct research about the courts, including the quantitative analysis of data. Designed for undergraduates and graduate students alike, this accessible and engaging text provides a thorough introduction to the world of judicial politics.
To what extent do courts make social and public policy and influence policy change? This innovative text analyzes this question generally and in seven distinct policy areas that play out in both federal and state courts—tax policy, environmental policy, reproductive rights, sex equality, affirmative action, school finance, and same-sex marriage. The authors address these issues through the twin lenses of how state and federal courts must and do interact with the other branches of government and whether judicial policy-making is a form of activist judging. Each chapter uncovers the policymaking aspects of judicial process by investigating the current state of the law, the extent of court involvement in policy change, the responses of other governmental entities and outside actors, and the factors which influenced the degree of implementation and impact of the relevant court decisions. Throughout the book, Howard and Steigerwalt examine and analyze the literature on judicial policy-making as well as evaluate existing measures of judicial ideology, judicial activism, court and legal policy formation, policy change and policy impact. This unique text offers new insights and areas to research in this important field of American politics.
The author presents a policy focus in his discussion of judicial process. Rather than limit the text to coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, he examines the judiciary as the third branch of government. He also asks students to evaluate the organization, function, and impact of the courts on and within government.
This collection examines topical issues related to the impact of courts on constitutional politics during extreme conditions. The book explores the impact of activist courts on democracy, separation of powers and rule of law in times of emergency constitutionalism. It starts with a theoretical explanation of the concept, features and main manifestations of judicial activism and its impact in shaping the relationship between constitutional, international and supranational law. It then focuses on judicial activism in extreme conditions, for example, in times of emergencies and pandemics, or in the context of democratic backsliding, authoritarian constitutionalism and illiberal constitutionalism. Thus, the book may be considered as a contribution to the debates on judicial activism, including the discussion of the impact of courts on certainty, proportionality and balancing of rights, as well as on revolutionary courts challenging authoritarian context and generally over the role of courts in the context of illiberalism and democratic backsliding. The volume thus offers an explanation of the concept of judicial activism, its impact on both the legal system and the political order and the role of courts in shaping the structures of the legal order. These issues are explored in theoretical and comparative constitutional perspectives. The book will be a valuable resource for academics and researchers working in the areas of courts, constitutional law and constitutional politics.
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 book finds that the time-consuming practice of confirmation hearings for district and circuit court nominees provides an important venue for senators to advocate on behalf of their policy preferences and bolster their chances of being re-elected. The wide variation in lower court nominees’ experiences before the Judiciary Committee exists because senators pursue these goals in different ways, depending on the level of controversy surrounding a nominee. Ultimately, the findings inform a (re)assessment of the role hearings play in ensuring quality judges, providing advice and consent, and advancing the democratic values of transparency and accountability.
