What is the American Theater Service Medal

Is the Ninth American Court of Appeals more liberal than the other federal appeals courts?

Small but nice! pp 269-292 | Cite as

abstract

The American federal appeals court for the ninth county - responsible for appeals cases in the western United States - is often characterized by conservative critics as left-wing. Using Bayesian models of judicial behavior, this chapter examines whether this description is generally applicable. The result shows that the judges of the ninth circle were appointed on average by more liberal presidents and senators than the judges of other circles, but that their ideology has less influence on their decision-making behavior than in other circles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

6 literature

  1. Achen, Christopher H., 2000: Warren Miller and the Future of Political Data Analysis, in: Political Analysis 8, 142–146.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, Jonathan H., 2004: Suicidal Folly, in: National Review Online, August 19, http://www.nationalreview.com/adler/adler200408190835.asp.Google Scholar
  3. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 2008: 2007 Annual Report of the Director: Judicial Business of the United States Courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  4. Amar, Akhil Reed / Amar, Vikram David, 2002: The Ninth Circuit on Free Speech, Federalism and Medicinal Marijuana, in: Findlaw, November 13, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ amar / 20021113.html.Google Scholar
  5. Baum, Lawrence, 2006: Judges and Their Audiences. A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baum, Lawrence, 2007: The Supreme Court. Ninth Edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bork, Robert H., 2007: "Thanks a Lot." Free speech and high schools, in: National Review, April 16, 24-25.Google Scholar
  8. Chemerinsky, Erwin, 2003: The Myth of the Liberal Ninth Circuit, in: Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 37Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, Jonathan Matthew, 2002: Inside Appellate Courts. The Impact of Court Organization on Judicial Decision Making in the United States Courts of Appeals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  10. Corley, Pamela C. / Howard, Robert M. / Nixon, David C., 2005: The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The use of the Federalist Papers, in: Political Research Quarterly 58, 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epstein, Lee, 2008: The Judicial Common Space (Web Site), in: http://epstein.law. northwestern. edu / research / JCS.html.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, Lee / Knight, Jack, 1998: The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  13. Epstein, Lee / Martin, Andrew D. / Segal, Jeffrey A. / Westerland, Chad, 2007: The Judicial Common Space, in: Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23, 303-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Epstein, Lee / Segal, Jeffrey A., 2005: Advice and Consent. The Politics of Judicial Appointments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fein, Bruce, 2006: Race separation ratified, in: Washington Times, December 26, A16.Google Scholar
  16. Feld, Scott L. / Grofman, Bernard, 1987: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for a Majority Winner in n-Dimensional Spatial Voting Games: An Intuitive Geometric Approach, in: American Journal of Political Science 31, 709–728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelman, Andrew / Carlin, John B. / Stern, Hal S. / Rubin, Donald B., 1995: Bayesian Data Analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Giles, Michael W. / Hettinger, Virginia A. / Peppers, Todd, 2001: Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas, in: Political Research Quarterly 54, 623–641.Google Scholar
  19. Giles, Michael W. / Hettinger, Virginia A. / Peppers, Todd, 2002: Measuring the Preferences of Federal Judges: Alternatives to Party of the Appointing President, Manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. Haire, Susan B., 2006: Judicial Selection and Decisionmaking in the Ninth Circuit, in: Arizona Law Review 48, 267-185.Google Scholar
  21. Hatch, Orin G., 2002: A circuitous court; Pledge decision is judicial activism, in: Washington Times, July 2, A17.Google Scholar
  22. Herron, Michael C., 1999: Postestimation Uncertainty in Limited Dependent Variable Models, in: Political Analysis 8, 83–98.Google Scholar
  23. Kastellec, John P., 2007: Panel Composition and Judicial Compliance on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, in: Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23, 421–441. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein, David E., 2002: Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kuersten, Ashlyn K. / Haire, Susan B., 2007: Update to the Appeals Court Database (1997-2002), in: http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/juri/appctdata.htm.Google Scholar
  26. Maltzman, Forrest / Spriggs, James F. / Wahlbeck, Paul J., 2000: Crafting Law on the Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Oleszek, Walter J., 1996: Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C .: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  28. Poole, Keith T., 1998: Estimating a Basic Space from a Set of Issue Scales, in: American Journal of Political Science 42, 954-993. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poole, Keith R. / Rosenthal, Howard, 1997: Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Price, Joyce Howard, 2002: 9th Circuit’s rulings frequently overturned, in: Washington Times, June 28, A16.Google Scholar
  31. Segal, Jeffrey A., 1984: Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981, in: American Political Science Review 78, 891-900. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Segal, Jeffrey A. / Spaeth, Harold J., 2002: The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sisk, Gregory C. / Heise, Michael, 2005: Judges and Ideology: Public and Academic Debates About Statistical Measures, in: Northwestern University Law Review 99, 743–803.Google Scholar
  34. Sisk, Gregory C. / Heise, Michael / Morriss, Andrew P., 1998: Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: An Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning, in: New York University Law Review 73, 1377-1500.Google Scholar
  35. Songer, Donald R., 2005: The United States Courts of Appeals Data Base, in: http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/juri/appctdata.htm.Google Scholar
  36. Songer, Donald R. / Haire, Susan, 1992: Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, in: American Journal of Political Science 36, 963-982. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Songer, Donald R. / Sheehan, Reginald S. / Haire, Susan B., 2000: Continuity and Change on the United States Courts of Appeals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  38. Van Winkle, Steven R., 1997: Dissent as a Signal: Evidence from the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 29, Washington, D.C., Manuscript.Google Scholar
  39. Wasby, Stephen L., 2005: Publication (Or Not) of Appellate Rulings: An Evaluation of Guidelines, in: Seton Hall Circuit Review 2, 41–117.Google Scholar
  40. Wrabley, Colin E., 2006: Applying Federal Court of Appeals ’Precedent: Contrasting Approaches to Applying Court of Appeals’ Federal Law Holdings and Erie State Law Predictions, in: Seton Hall Circuit Review 3, 1–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceJames Madison UniversityMadison