• “The authors, using sophisticated state-of-the-art
statistical techniques, present convincing and often surprising
answers to their research questions. Their work helps to illuminate
judicial voting and judicial opinion behavior on the appeals courts
and as such contributes to our understanding of appeals court decision-making.
The book will surely be considered a classic in the field.”
—Sheldon Goldman, University of Massachusetts at Amherst,
author of Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court Selection from
Roosevelt through Reagan
|
Judging on a Collegial Court:
Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making |
| |
| Virginia A. Hettinger, Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy
L. Martinek |
| 192 pages, 6 x 9 |
| 1 figure and 12 tables |
| Cloth 978-0-8139-2518-9 • $39.50 |
| paper 978-0-8139-2697-1 • $18.50 |
| Constitutionalism
and Demomcracy |
 |
Dissensus is often viewed in the professional world as a starting
point for collaboration; rather than leaving decisions to just
one person, dissent offers the opportunity to rethink or reinvent
an idea, leading, one hopes, to a better result. When dissensus
occurs in a federal court, however, it raises the question of
whether this difference of opinion maintains the integrity of
the judiciary or undermines its legitimacy. In Judging on
a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making,
Virginia Hettinger, Stefanie Lindquist, and Wendy Martinek examine
the dynamic that gives rise to such dissensus in federal appeals
courts, revealing how the appellate process shapes the content
and the consistency of the law.
The authors examine horizontal dissensus in the minority of cases
in which there are dissenting or concurring—as opposed to unanimous—opinions.
Primarily investigating why judges on the appeals courts agree
or disagree with one another regarding the outcomes of the cases
before them, the authors also examine vertical dissensus and ask
why judges affirm or reverse lower court judges whose cases are
decided on appeal. Focusing on the behavioral aspects of disagreement
within a panel and between the levels of the federal judicial
hierarchy, the authors reveal the impact of individual attitudes
or preferences on judicial decision-making, and hence on political
divisions in the broader society.
Virginia A. Hettinger is Assistant Professor
of Political Science at the University of Connecticut. Stefanie
A. Lindquist is Associate Professor of Political Science
and Law at Vanderbilt University. Wendy L. Martinek
is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Binghamton University,
State University of New York.
|
