Advertisement
| do judges have political parties: How Judges Think Richard A. Posner, 2010-05-01 A distinguished and experienced appellate court judge, Richard A. Posner offers in this new book a unique and, to orthodox legal thinkers, a startling perspective on how judges and justices decide cases. When conventional legal materials enable judges to ascertain the true facts of a case and apply clear pre-existing legal rules to them, Posner argues, they do so straightforwardly; that is the domain of legalist reasoning. However, in non-routine cases, the conventional materials run out and judges are on their own, navigating uncharted seas with equipment consisting of experience, emotions, and often unconscious beliefs. In doing so, they take on a legislative role, though one that is confined by internal and external constraints, such as professional ethics, opinions of respected colleagues, and limitations imposed by other branches of government on freewheeling judicial discretion. Occasional legislators, judges are motivated by political considerations in a broad and sometimes a narrow sense of that term. In that open area, most American judges are legal pragmatists. Legal pragmatism is forward-looking and policy-based. It focuses on the consequences of a decision in both the short and the long term, rather than on its antecedent logic. Legal pragmatism so understood is really just a form of ordinary practical reasoning, rather than some special kind of legal reasoning. Supreme Court justices are uniquely free from the constraints on ordinary judges and uniquely tempted to engage in legislative forms of adjudication. More than any other court, the Supreme Court is best understood as a political court. |
| do judges have political parties: Model Code of Judicial Conduct American Bar Association, Center for Professional Responsibility (American Bar Association), 2007 |
| do judges have political parties: In Defense of Judicial Elections Chris W. Bonneau, Melinda Gann Hall, 2009-06-02 Ought judges be independent of democratic pressures, or should they be subjected to the preferences and approval of the electorate? In this book, Bonneau and Hall use empirical data to shed light on these normative questions and offer a coherent defense of judicial elections. |
| do judges have political parties: Electing Judges James L. Gibson, 2012-09-20 In Electing Judges, James L. Gibson responds to the growing chorus of critics who fear that the politics of running for office undermine judicial independence. While many people have opinions on the topic, few have supported them with empirical evidence. Gibson rectifies this situation, offering the most systematic study to date of the impact of campaigns on public perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and the legitimacy of elected state courts-and his findings are both counterintuitive and controversial--Page [four] of cover. |
| do judges have political parties: Judicial Politics in Mexico Andrea Castagnola, Saul Lopez Noriega, 2016-11-03 After more than seventy years of uninterrupted authoritarian government headed by the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), Mexico formally began the transition to democracy in 2000. Unlike most other new democracies in Latin America, no special Constitutional Court was set up, nor was there any designated bench of the Supreme Court for constitutional adjudication. Instead, the judiciary saw its powers expand incrementally. Under this new context inevitable questions emerged: How have the justices interpreted the constitution? What is the relation of the court with the other political institutions? How much autonomy do justices display in their decisions? Has the court considered the necessary adjustments to face the challenges of democracy? It has become essential in studying the new role of the Supreme Court to obtain a more accurate and detailed diagnosis of the performances of its justices in this new political environment. Through critical review of relevant debates and using original data sets to empirically analyze the way justices voted on the three main means of constitutional control from 2000 through 2011, leading legal scholars provide a thoughtful and much needed new interpretation of the role the judiciary plays in a country’s transition to democracy This book is designed for graduate courses in law and courts, judicial politics, comparative judicial politics, Latin American institutions, and transitions to democracy. This book will equip scholars and students with the knowledge required to understand the importance of the independence of the judiciary in the transition to democracy. |
| do judges have political parties: The Voter Decides Angus Campbell, 1954 Based on a survey of the 1952 election conducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michagan. Cf. Preface. |
| do judges have political parties: Injustices Ian Millhiser, 2016-06-28 Now with a new epilogue-- an unprecedented and unwavering history of the Supreme Court showing how its decisions have consistently favored the moneyed and powerful. Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law. The Court was the midwife of Jim Crow, the right hand of union busters, and the dead hand of the Confederacy. Nor is the modern Court a vast improvement, with its incursions on voting rights and its willingness to place elections for sale. In this powerful indictment of a venerated institution, Ian Millhiser tells the history of the Supreme Court through the eyes of the everyday people who have suffered the most from it. America ratified three constitutional amendments to provide equal rights to freed slaves, but the justices spent thirty years largely dismantling these amendments. Then they spent the next forty years rewriting them into a shield for the wealthy and the powerful. In the Warren era and the few years following it, progressive justices restored the Constitution's promises of equality, free speech, and fair justice for the accused. But, Millhiser contends, that was an historic accident. Indeed, if it weren't for several unpredictable events, Brown v. Board of Education could have gone the other way. In Injustices, Millhiser argues that the Supreme Court has seized power for itself that rightfully belongs to the people's elected representatives, and has bent the arc of American history away from justice. |
| do judges have political parties: Judicial Power Christine Landfried, 2019-02-07 Explores the relationship between the legitimacy, the efficacy, and the decision-making of national and transnational constitutional courts. |
| do judges have political parties: Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy Keith E. Whittington, 2009-03-09 Should the Supreme Court have the last word when it comes to interpreting the Constitution? The justices on the Supreme Court certainly seem to think so--and their critics say that this position threatens democracy. But Keith Whittington argues that the Court's justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the benefit of politicians. In this sweeping political history of judicial supremacy in America, Whittington shows that presidents and political leaders of all stripes have worked to put the Court on a pedestal and have encouraged its justices to accept the role of ultimate interpreters of the Constitution. Whittington examines why presidents have often found judicial supremacy to be in their best interest, why they have rarely assumed responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, and why constitutional leadership has often been passed to the courts. The unprecedented assertiveness of the Rehnquist Court in striking down acts of Congress is only the most recent example of a development that began with the founding generation itself. Presidential bids for constitutional leadership have been rare, but reflect the temporary political advantage in doing so. Far more often, presidents have cooperated in increasing the Court's power and encouraging its activism. Challenging the conventional wisdom that judges have usurped democracy, Whittington shows that judicial supremacy is the product of democratic politics. |
| do judges have political parties: The Behavior of Federal Judges Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, Richard A. Posner, 2013-01-07 Judges play a central role in the American legal system, but their behavior as decision-makers is not well understood, even among themselves. The system permits judges to be quite secretive (and most of them are), so indirect methods are required to make sense of their behavior. Here, a political scientist, an economist, and a judge work together to construct a unified theory of judicial decision-making. Using statistical methods to test hypotheses, they dispel the mystery of how judicial decisions in district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court are made. The authors derive their hypotheses from a labor-market model, which allows them to consider judges as they would any other economic actors: as self-interested individuals motivated by both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects of their work. In the authors' view, this model describes judicial behavior better than either the traditional “legalist” theory, which sees judges as automatons who mechanically apply the law to the facts, or the current dominant theory in political science, which exaggerates the ideological component in judicial behavior. Ideology does figure into decision-making at all levels of the federal judiciary, the authors find, but its influence is not uniform. It diminishes as one moves down the judicial hierarchy from the Supreme Court to the courts of appeals to the district courts. As The Behavior of Federal Judges demonstrates, the good news is that ideology does not extinguish the influence of other components in judicial decision-making. Federal judges are not just robots or politicians in robes. |
| do judges have political parties: Ethical Principles for Judges Canadian Judicial Council, 1998 This publication is the latest in a series of steps to assist judges in carrying out their onerous responsibilities, and represents a concise yet comprehensive set of principles addressing the many difficult ethical issues that confront judges as they work and live in their communities. It also provides a sound basis to promote a more complete understanding of the role of the judge in society and of the ethical dilemmas they so often encounter. Sections of the publication cover the following: the purpose of the publication; judicial independence; integrity; diligence; equality; and impartiality, including judicial demeanour, civic and charitable activity, political activity, and conflicts of interest. |
| do judges have political parties: Perceptions of the Independence of Judges in Europe Frans van Dijk, 2020-12-14 This open access book is about the perception of the independence of the judiciary in Europe. Do citizens and judges see its independence in the same way? Do judges feel that their independence is respected by the users of the courts, by the leadership of the courts and by politicians? Does the population trust the judiciary more than other public institutions, or less? How does independence of the judiciary work at the national level and at the level of the European Union? These interrelated questions are particularly relevant in times when the independence of the judiciary is under political pressure in several countries in the European Union, giving way to illiberal democracy. Revealing surveys among judges, lay judges and lawyers - in addition to regular surveys of the European Commission - provide a wealth of information to answer these questions. While the answers will not please everyone, they are of interest to a wide audience, in particular court leaders, judges, lawyers, politicians and civil servants. |
| do judges have political parties: Manipulating Courts in New Democracies Andrea Castagnola, 2017-10-31 When can the Executive manipulate the composition of a Court? What political factors explain judicial instability on the bench? Using original field data from Argentina's National Supreme Court and all twenty-four Provincial Supreme Courts, Andrea Castagnola develops a novel theory to explain forced retirements of judges. She argues that in developing democracies the political benefits of manipulating the court outweigh the costs associated with doing so. The instability of the political context and its institutions causes politicians to focus primarily on short-term goals and to care mostly about winning elections. Consequently, judiciaries become a valuable tool for politicians to have under their control. Contrary to the predictions of strategic retirement theory, Castagnola demonstrates that there are various institutional and non-institutional mechanisms for induced retirement which politicians have used against justices, regardless of the amount of support their party has in Congress. The theoretical innovations contained herein shed much needed light on the existing literature on judicial politics and democratization. Even though the political manipulation of courts is a worldwide phenomenon, previous studies have shown that Argentina is the theory-generating case for studying manipulation of high courts. |
| do judges have political parties: Can Courts be Bulwarks of Democracy? Jeffrey K. Staton, Christopher Reenock, Jordan Holsinger, 2022-03-31 This book argues that independent courts can defend democracy by encouraging political elites to more prudently exercise their powers. |
| do judges have political parties: Model Rules of Professional Conduct American Bar Association. House of Delegates, Center for Professional Responsibility (American Bar Association), 2007 The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts. |
| do judges have political parties: Legislative Leviathan Gary W. Cox, Mathew D. McCubbins, 2007-03-05 The second edition of Legislative Leviathan provides an incisive new look at the inner workings of the House of Representatives in the post-World War II era. Re-evaluating the role of parties and committees, Gary W. Cox and Mathew D. McCubbins view parties in the House - especially majority parties - as a species of 'legislative cartel'. These cartels seize the power, theoretically resident in the House, to make rules governing the structure and process of legislation. Most of the cartel's efforts are focused on securing control of the legislative agenda for its members. The first edition of this book had significant influence on the study of American politics and is essential reading for students of Congress, the presidency, and the political party system. |
| do judges have political parties: What's Law Got to Do With It? Charles Gardner Geyh, 2011-08-09 Top US legal scholars and political scientists examine how the law shapes judges’ behavior and decisions, and what it means for society at large. Although there is a growing consensus among legal scholars and political scientists, significant points of divergence remain. Contributors to What’s Law Got to Do with It? explore ways to reach greater accord on the complexity and nuance of judicial decision making and judicial elections, while acknowledging that agreement on what judges do is not likely to occur any time soon. As the first forum in which political scientists and legal scholars engage with one another on these hot button issues, this volume strives to establish a true interdisciplinary conversation. The inclusion of reactions from practicing judges puts into high relief the deep-seated and opposing beliefs about the roles of law and politics in judicial work. Praise for What’s Law Got to Do with It? “Geyh (associate dean for research and John F. Kimberling professor of law, Indiana Univ. School of Law) is well qualified to edit this reader about the interaction of law and politics in contemporary society. The contributors . . . are among the very best scholars in the legal and political science realm . . . . The writing is lively and easy to follow for the somewhat sophisticated reader . . . . Highly recommended.” —Choice “Readers will find these essays fascinating, thoughtful and sometimes infuriating, as conventional disciplinary wisdom is defended, modified and refuted. The result is a terrific text for all students of the legal process.” —Mark A. Graber, University of Maryland “This volume pulls together an excellent cast to examine one of the most intriguing and most difficult questions in the study of law and politics today—what role does law play in the job of judging? There is a lot to learn in these pages, and this book does a fine job of pushing the conversation forward.” —Keith Whittington, Princeton University |
| do judges have political parties: The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited Jeffrey A. Segal, Harold J. Spaeth, 2002-09-16 Two leading scholars of the Supreme Court explain and predict its decision making. |
| do judges have political parties: Fake Law The Secret Barrister, 2020-09-03 THE TOP TEN SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER 'A powerful polemic' Sunday Times 'A compelling, eye-opening read' Daily Express – Did an illegal immigrant avoid deportation because he had a cat? – Is the law on the side of the burglar who enters your home? – Are unelected judges ‘enemies of the people’? Most of us think the law is only relevant to criminals, if we even think of it at all. But the law touches every area of our lives: from intimate family matters to the biggest issues in our society. Our unfamiliarity is dangerous because it makes us vulnerable to media spin, political lies and the kind of misinformation that frequently comes from loud-mouthed amateurs and those with vested interests. This 'fake law' allows the powerful and the ignorant to corrupt justice without our knowledge – worse, we risk letting them make us complicit. Thankfully, the Secret Barrister is back to reveal the stupidity, malice and incompetence behind many of the biggest legal stories of recent years. In Fake Law, the Secret Barrister debunks the lies and builds a defence against the abuse of our law, our rights and our democracy that is as entertaining as it is vital. |
| do judges have political parties: Courts in Federal Countries Nicholas Theodore Aroney, John Kincaid, 2017-04-24 Courts are key players in the dynamics of federal countries since their rulings have a direct impact on the ability of governments to centralize and decentralize power. Courts in Federal Countries examines the role high courts play in thirteen countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Nigeria, Spain, and the United States. The volume’s contributors analyse the centralizing or decentralizing forces at play following a court’s ruling on issues such as individual rights, economic affairs, social issues, and other matters. The thirteen substantive chapters have been written to facilitate comparability between the countries. Each chapter outlines a country’s federal system, explains the constitutional and institutional status of the court system, and discusses the high court’s jurisprudence in light of these features. Courts in Federal Countries offers insightful explanations of judicial behaviour in the world’s leading federations. |
| do judges have political parties: Judicial Review and the National Political Process Jesse H. Choper, 2013-05-16 As constitutional scholar John Nowak noted when the book was first released, Professor Choper's Judicial Review and the National Political Process is mandatory reading for anyone seriously attempting to study our constitutional system of government. It is an important assessment of the democratic process and the theoretical and practical role of the Supreme Court. That view is no less true today, as borne out by the countless citations to this landmark work over the decades, including scores in the last few years alone. It is simply part of the foundational canon of constitutional law and political theory, an essential part of the library of scholars, students, and educated readers interested in considering the hard choices inherent in what the courts should decide and how they should decide them. |
| do judges have political parties: Politics and the English Language George Orwell, 2021-01-01 George Orwell set out ‘to make political writing into an art’, and to a wide extent this aim shaped the future of English literature – his descriptions of authoritarian regimes helped to form a new vocabulary that is fundamental to understanding totalitarianism. While 1984 and Animal Farm are amongst the most popular classic novels in the English language, this new series of Orwell’s essays seeks to bring a wider selection of his writing on politics and literature to a new readership. In Politics and the English Language, the second in the Orwell’s Essays series, Orwell takes aim at the language used in politics, which, he says, ‘is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind’. In an age where the language used in politics is constantly under the microscope, Orwell’s Politics and the English Language is just as relevant today, and gives the reader a vital understanding of the tactics at play. 'A writer who can – and must – be rediscovered with every age.' — Irish Times |
| do judges have political parties: Courts, Politics and Constitutional Law Martin Belov, 2019-10-16 This book examines how the judicialization of politics, and the politicization of courts, affect representative democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers. This volume critically assesses the phenomena of judicialization of politics and politicization of the judiciary. It explores the rising impact of courts on key constitutional principles, such as democracy and separation of powers, which is paralleled by increasing criticism of this influence from both liberal and illiberal perspectives. The book also addresses the challenges to rule of law as a principle, preconditioned on independent and powerful courts, which are triggered by both democratic backsliding and the mushrooming of populist constitutionalism and illiberal constitutional regimes. Presenting a wide range of case studies, the book will be a valuable resource for students and academics in constitutional law and political science seeking to understand the increasingly complex relationships between the judiciary, executive and legislature. |
| do judges have political parties: Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy Paul Howe, Peter H. Russell, 2001-03-29 The controversy raises challenging questions about the role of a powerful judiciary in a democracy. In Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy, a series of essays commissioned by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, some of Canada's foremost commentators - academics, politicians, and Supreme Court judges themselves - take up the debate. Some tangle over the pivotal question: should judges have the decisive say on issues involving entrenched rights that have profound implication for the policy preferences of elected bodies? Others examine related issues, including Supreme Court appointment procedures, interest group litigation, the historical roots of the notwithstanding clause, and the state of public opinion on Canada's courts. Those interested in the power of the judicial branch will find much in this collection to stimulate fresh thinking on issues that are likely to remain on the public agenda for years to come. Contributors include Joseph F. Fletcher (Toronto), Janet Hiebert (Queen's), Gregory Hein (Toronto), Peter W. Hogg (York), Paul Howe, Rainer Knopff (Calgary), Sébastien Lebel-Grenier (Sherbrooke), Howard Leeson (Regina), Kate Malleson (London School of Economics), E. Preston Manning (Reform Party of Canada), Hon. Beverley McLachlin (Supreme Court of Canada), F.L. Morton (Calgary), Pierre Patenaude (Sherbrooke), Peter Russell, Allison A. Thornton (Blake, Cassels and Graydon), Frederick Vaughan (emeritus, Guelph), Lorraine Eisenstat Weinrib (Toronto), Hon. Bertha Wilson (emeritus, Supreme Court of Canada), and Jacob Ziegel (Toronto). |
| do judges have political parties: Appointing Judges in an Age of Judicial Power Peter H. Russell, Kate Malleson, 2006-01-01 The main aim of this volume is to analyse common issues arising from increasing judicial power in the context of different political and legal systems, including those in North America, Africa, Europe, Australia, and Asia. |
| do judges have political parties: How Judges Judge Brian M. Barry, 2020-11-26 A judge’s role is to make decisions. This book is about how judges undertake this task. It is about forces on the judicial role and their consequences, about empirical research from a variety of academic disciplines that observes and verifies how factors can affect how judges judge. On the one hand, judges decide by interpreting and applying the law, but much more affects judicial decision-making: psychological effects, group dynamics, numerical reasoning, biases, court processes, influences from political and other institutions, and technological advancement. All can have a bearing on judicial outcomes. In How Judges Judge: Empirical Insights into Judicial Decision-Making, Brian M. Barry explores how these factors, beyond the law, affect judges in their role. Case examples, judicial rulings, judges’ own self-reflections on their role and accounts from legal history complement this analysis to contextualise the research, make it more accessible and enrich the reader’s understanding and appreciation of judicial decision-making. Offering research-based insights into how judges make the decisions that can impact daily life and societies around the globe, this book will be of interest to practising and training judges, litigation lawyers and those studying law and related disciplines. |
| do judges have political parties: Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges American Bar Association, 1974 |
| do judges have political parties: Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House David W. Rohde, 1991-08-13 Since the Second World War, congressional parties have been characterized as declining in strength and influence. Research has generally attributed this decline to policy conflicts within parties, to growing electoral independence of members, and to the impact of the congressional reforms of the 1970s. Yet the 1980s witnessed a strong resurgence of parties and party leadership—especially in the House of Representatives. Offering a concise and compelling explanation of the causes of this resurgence, David W. Rohde argues that a realignment of electoral forces led to a reduction of sectional divisions within the parties—particularly between the northern and southern Democrats—and to increased divergence between the parties on many important issues. He challenges previous findings by asserting that congressional reform contributed to, rather than restrained, the increase of partisanship. Among the Democrats, reforms siphoned power away from conservative and autocratic committee chairs and put control of those committees in the hands of Democratic committee caucuses, strengthening party leaders and making both party and committee leaders responsible to rank-and-file Democrats. Electoral changes increased the homogeneity of House Democrats while institutional reforms reduced the influence of dissident members on a consensus in the majority party. Rohde's accessible analysis provides a detailed discussion of the goals of the congressional reformers, the increased consensus among Democrats and its reinforcement by their caucus, the Democratic leadership's use of expanded powers to shape the legislative agenda, and the responses of House Republicans. He also addresses the changes in the relationship between the House majority and the president during the Carter and Reagan administrations and analyzes the legislative consequences of the partisan resurgence. A readable, systematic synthesis of the many complex factors that fueled the recent resurgence of partisanship, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House is ideal for course use. |
| do judges have political parties: Judges and Their Audiences Lawrence Baum, 2009-01-10 What motivates judges as decision makers? Political scientist Lawrence Baum offers a new perspective on this crucial question, a perspective based on judges' interest in the approval of audiences important to them. The conventional scholarly wisdom holds that judges on higher courts seek only to make good law, good policy, or both. In these theories, judges are influenced by other people only in limited ways, in consequence of their legal and policy goals. In contrast, Baum argues that the influence of judges' audiences is pervasive. This influence derives from judges' interest in popularity and respect, a motivation central to most people. Judges care about the regard of audiences because they like that regard in itself, not just as a means to other ends. Judges and Their Audiences uses research in social psychology to make the case that audiences shape judges' choices in substantial ways. Drawing on a broad range of scholarship on judicial decision-making and an array of empirical evidence, the book then analyzes the potential and actual impact of several audiences, including the public, other branches of government, court colleagues, the legal profession, and judges' social peers. Engagingly written, this book provides a deeper understanding of key issues concerning judicial behavior on which scholars disagree, identifies aspects of judicial behavior that diverge from the assumptions of existing models, and shows how those models can be strengthened. |
| do judges have political parties: The Conservative Case for Class Actions Brian T. Fitzpatrick, 2019-11-01 Since the 1960s, the class action lawsuit has been a powerful tool for holding businesses accountable. Yet years of attacks by corporate America and unfavorable rulings by the Supreme Court have left its future uncertain. In this book, Brian T. Fitzpatrick makes the case for the importance of class action litigation from a surprising political perspective: an unabashedly conservative point of view. Conservatives have opposed class actions in recent years, but Fitzpatrick argues that they should see such litigation not as a danger to the economy, but as a form of private enforcement of the law. He starts from the premise that all of us, conservatives and libertarians included, believe that markets need at least some rules to thrive, from laws that enforce contracts to laws that prevent companies from committing fraud. He also reminds us that conservatives consider the private sector to be superior to the government in most areas. And the relatively little-discussed intersection of those two beliefs is where the benefits of class action lawsuits become clear: when corporations commit misdeeds, class action lawsuits enlist the private sector to intervene, resulting in a smaller role for the government, lower taxes, and, ultimately, more effective solutions. Offering a novel argument that will surprise partisans on all sides, The Conservative Case for Class Actions is sure to breathe new life into this long-running debate. |
| do judges have political parties: Judicial Decision-making Glendon A. Schubert, 1963 |
| do judges have political parties: The Party Decides Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, John Zaller, 2009-05-15 Throughout the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, politicians and voters alike worried that the outcome might depend on the preferences of unelected superdelegates. This concern threw into relief the prevailing notion that—such unusually competitive cases notwithstanding—people, rather than parties, should and do control presidential nominations. But for the past several decades, The Party Decides shows, unelected insiders in both major parties have effectively selected candidates long before citizens reached the ballot box. Tracing the evolution of presidential nominations since the 1790s, this volume demonstrates how party insiders have sought since America’s founding to control nominations as a means of getting what they want from government. Contrary to the common view that the party reforms of the 1970s gave voters more power, the authors contend that the most consequential contests remain the candidates’ fights for prominent endorsements and the support of various interest groups and state party leaders. These invisible primaries produce frontrunners long before most voters start paying attention, profoundly influencing final election outcomes and investing parties with far more nominating power than is generally recognized. |
| do judges have political parties: Judges and Democratization B. C. Smith, 2017-02-24 Judiciaries must be politically impartial and immune from political interference if democracy is to be consolidated in countries in transition from authoritarian rule. Without an independent judiciary there can be no rule of law, and without the rule of law there can be no democracy. Judges and Democratization is based on the premise that democracy cannot be consolidated without the rule of law of which judicial independence is an indispensable part. It pays particular attention to the restraints placed upon judicial independence, and the reforms which are being applied, or remain to be adopted, in order to guard against the different kinds of interference which prevent judicial decisions being taken in a wholly impartial way. It examines the paradox of judicial activism arising from the independence endowed upon the judiciary by post-authoritarian constitutions. The book asks how, in the context of this endowed authority, such accountability can be made compatible with the preservation of judicial independence when the concept of an accountable, independent judiciary appears to be a contradiction in terms. This text will be of key interest to teachers and students of politics, comparative government/politics, combined politics and law, democracy and governance, human rights and democratization, and democratic development. |
| do judges have political parties: The Judicial Tug of War Adam Bonica, Maya Sen, 2020-12-17 Presents a novel theory explaining how and why politicians and lawyers politicise courts. |
| do judges have political parties: Code of Conduct for United States Judges Judicial Conference of the United States, 1993 |
| do judges have political parties: The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America Rachel Sieder, L. Schjolden, A. Angell, 2016-04-30 During the last two decades the judiciary has come to play an increasingly important political role in Latin America. Constitutional courts and supreme courts are more active in counterbalancing executive and legislative power than ever before. At the same time, the lack of effective citizenship rights has prompted ordinary people to press their claims and secure their rights through the courts. This collection of essays analyzes the diverse manifestations of the judicialization of politics in contemporary Latin America, assessing their positive and negative consequences for state-society relations, the rule of law, and democratic governance in the region. With individual chapters exploring Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela, it advances a comparative framework for thinking about the nature of the judicialization of politics within contemporary Latin American democracies. |
| do judges have political parties: Judicial Politics in the United States Mark C. Miller, 2018-09-03 Judicial Politics in the United States examines the role of courts as policymaking institutions and their interactions with the other branches of government and other political actors in the U.S. political system. Not only does this book cover the nuts and bolts of the functions, structures and processes of our courts and legal system, it goes beyond other judicial process books by exploring how the courts interact with executives, legislatures, and state and federal bureaucracies. It also includes a chapter devoted to the courts' interactions with interest groups, the media, and general public opinion and a chapter that looks at how American courts and judges interact with other judiciaries around the world. Judicial Politics in the United States balances coverage of judicial processes with discussions of the courts' interactions with our larger political universe, making it an essential text for students of judicial politics. |
| do judges have political parties: Judicial Process in America Robert A. Carp, Kenneth L. Manning, Lisa M. Holmes, Ronald Stidham, 2019-02-20 Known for shedding light on the link between the courts, public policy, and the political environment, Judicial Process in America offers students a clear but comprehensive overview of today’s American judiciary. Considering the courts from every level, the authors thoroughly cover judges, lawyers, litigants, and the variables at play in judicial decision-making. The highly anticipated Eleventh Edition offers updated coverage of recent Supreme Court rulings, including same-sex marriage and health care subsidies; the effect of three women justices on the Court′s patterns of decision; and the policy-making role of state tribunals as they consider an increasing number of state programs and policies. New to this Edition Discussions of recent judicial appointments take a critical look at how President Trump’s victory has set the stage for moving the ideological direction of the Supreme Court and of the lower federal judiciary in a distinctly more conservative direction. An analysis of recent controversial Supreme Court decisions help students to identify with the content by exploring issues such as, citizenship rights for immigrants, gay and lesbian rights, and freedom of speech and religion. Additional tables and graphs illustrate the patterns and trends that are occurring in today’s judicial process. New coverage of current topics help students see how the judicial process is applied. These topics include: the legality of Congress’ feeble attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that affects millions of people; how to address the issues of immigration and deportations, including what to do about so-called Dreamers (children brought illegally to the United States by their parents without the children’s knowledge and who have spent much or all of their lives here); the status of abortion rights in America as more and more conservative states have sought to further restrict a woman’s right to such a procedure; the legal status of transgender persons in the armed forces; the degree to which severely gerrymandered legislative districts pass constitutional muster; and the great changes in the issue of same-sex marriage, both among average Americans and within the state and federal court systems (including all the ancillary issues such as whether same-sex couples can adopt children and obtain government fringe benefits). |
| do judges have political parties: Ideology in the Language of Judges Susan U. Philips, 1998-04-16 A study that will appeal to any reader interested in the relationship between our language and our laws, Ideology in the Language of Judges focuses on the way judges take guilty pleas from criminal defendants and on the judges' views of their own courtroom behavior. This book argues that variation in the discourse structure of the guilty pleas can best be understood as enactments of the judges' differing interpretations of due process law and the proper role of the judge in the courtroom. Susan Philips demonstrates how legal and professional ideologies are expressed differently in interviews and socially occurring speech, and reveals how bounded written and spoken genres of legal discourse play a role in containing and ordering ideological diversity in language use. She also shows how the ideological struggles in a given courtroom are central yet largely hidden or denied. Such findings will contribute significantly to the study of how speakers create realities through their use of language. |
| do judges have political parties: Constitutional Judiciary in a New Democracy László Sólyom, Georg Brunner, 2000 Describes the decisions of the most innovative of the new constitutional courts in post Soviet Central Europe |
Osteopathic medicine: What kind of doctor is a D.O.? - May…
Nov 29, 2022 · A doctor of osteopathic medicine, also known as a D.O., is a fully trained and licensed doctor. A doctor of osteopathic medicine graduates from a U.S. osteopathic …
How well do face masks protect against COVID-19? - Mayo Clinic
Nov 4, 2023 · Experts do not recommend using face shields instead of masks. It's not clear how much protection shields provide. But wearing a face mask may not be possible in …
Penis-enlargement products: Do they work? - Mayo Clinic
Apr 17, 2025 · Ads for penis-enlargement products and procedures are everywhere. Many pumps, pills, weights, exercises and surgeries claim to increase the length and width of …
Ileostomy - Mayo Clinic
May 2, 2025 · Walk inside or outside. It is one of the best physical activities you can do after surgery. In the first weeks after surgery, you only may be able to take short walks. As you feel …
Hydronephrosis - Diagnosis and treatment - Mayo Clinic
Nov 6, 2024 · What you can do. When you make the appointment, ask if there's anything you need to do in advance. For instance, you may need to stop eating for a certain number of …
Osteopathic medicine: What kind of doctor is a D.O.? - Mayo Clinic
Nov 29, 2022 · A doctor of osteopathic medicine, also known as a D.O., is a fully trained and licensed doctor. A doctor of osteopathic medicine graduates from a U.S. osteopathic medical …
How well do face masks protect against COVID-19? - Mayo Clinic
Nov 4, 2023 · Experts do not recommend using face shields instead of masks. It's not clear how much protection shields provide. But wearing a face mask may not be possible in every …
Penis-enlargement products: Do they work? - Mayo Clinic
Apr 17, 2025 · Ads for penis-enlargement products and procedures are everywhere. Many pumps, pills, weights, exercises and surgeries claim to increase the length and width of your penis. …
Ileostomy - Mayo Clinic
May 2, 2025 · Walk inside or outside. It is one of the best physical activities you can do after surgery. In the first weeks after surgery, you only may be able to take short walks. As you feel …
Hydronephrosis - Diagnosis and treatment - Mayo Clinic
Nov 6, 2024 · What you can do. When you make the appointment, ask if there's anything you need to do in advance. For instance, you may need to stop eating for a certain number of …
Stem cells: What they are and what they do - Mayo Clinic
Mar 23, 2024 · Stem cells are a special type of cells that have two important properties. They are able to make more cells like themselves. That is, they self-renew. And they can become other …
Do infrared saunas have any health benefits? - Mayo Clinic
Sep 13, 2024 · We use the data you provide to deliver you the content you requested. To provide you with the most relevant and helpful information, we may combine your email and website …
Statin side effects: Weigh the benefits and risks - Mayo Clinic
Mar 11, 2025 · Statins lower cholesterol and protect against heart attack and stroke. But they may lead to side effects in some people. Healthcare professionals often prescribe statins for people …
Treating COVID-19 at home: Care tips for you and others
Apr 5, 2024 · Do not share towels, cups or other items if possible. Use a separate bathroom and bedroom if possible. Get more airflow in your home. Once you're feeling better and haven't …
Menopause hormone therapy: Is it right for you? - Mayo Clinic
Apr 18, 2025 · Menopause hormone therapy is medicine with female hormones. It's taken to replace the estrogen the body stops making after menopause, which is when periods stop for …
