|
|
|
Detail Center Header Text Above Items |
(Larger Image)
|
Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making (Constitutionalism and Democracy)
by Virginia A. Hettinger, Stefanie A. Lindquist, Wendy L. Martinek
Product Group: Book
Publisher: University of Virginia Press (2006-03-13)
ISBN: 0813925185
EAN: 9780813925189
Dewy Decimal #: 347.7324
Hardcover: 153 pages
SKU: S070141-0943-DL
Condition: New
Comments: New Book. New condition. Ships same day or next in a bubble mailer. Enjoy,
|
Editorial Reviews
|
Product Description
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.
|
Customer Reviews
|
A Valuable Study of the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Rating  (5)
Date: 2006-07-24
2 out of 2 customers found this reveiw helpful
During the last several years, important books studying various facets of the U.S. Courts of Appeals have appeared by Cass Sunstein (also reviewed on Amazon) and David E. Klein, to mention just two. This volume, co-authored by three political scientists, is a significant addition to this literature. The Courts of Appeals are so vital because for nearly all federal litigation, they are the ultimate court of decision, as they oversee the district courts. While this book employs statistical models and charts, it is quite digestible by the general reader. This is because the book is written with such clarity of exposition and explanation that its method of analysis and conclusions come through quite nicely. One only wishes that IRS materials could match this level of clarity.
The focus of the study is the concurring and dissenting behavior of appellate judges, and how they interact with district courts. Or, as the authors put it, "horizonal dissensus" (or disagreement within the court) and "vertical dissensus" (disagreements between the courts of appeals and the district courts whose decisions they review). While the authors place primary reliance upon an attitudinal model (i.e., judges vote their personal policy preferences), they balance this approach with consideration of other factors such as circuit norms, case characteristics, and institutional roles such as chief judge, senior judge or designated district court panel member. On each such topic, the authors skillfully integrate references to other studies that have been done; the bibliography on its own is a rich resource for those interested in judicial behavior. Among the most interesting findings are that ideology plays no role in reversals of district court decisions, and that unlike the Supreme Court, strategic considerations do not dictate dissenting behavior. The authors suggest that it is more accurate to think of the relationship between district and appellate courts as that of a team working together, rather than (as does much of the literature) as a principal-agent arrangement.
For political scientist students of judicial behavior, but also for the general reader, this is a valuable addition to the body of literature on these highly important courts.
|
|
|
|
Detail Center Footer Text Below Items |
|
|