Search results

With its often vague legal concepts and institutions that operate according to unfamiliar procedures, judicial decision-making is, in many respects, a highly enigmatic process. New Directions in Judicial Politics seeks to demystify the courts, offering readers the insights of empirical research to address questions that are of genuine interest to students.In addition to presenting a set of conclusions about the way in which courts operate, this book also models the craft of political research, illustrating how one can account for a variety of factors that might affect the co.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction. Three Stories about Courts -- Part I. Rights on the Left, and Rights on the Right -- One. Rights on the Left -- Two. Rights on the Right -- Part II. Courts, Democracy, and Policy Change -- Three. Are Judges Umpires? -- Four. Are Judges Tyrants? -- Five. Are Judges Sideshows? -- Conclusion. Judicial Politics in Polarized Times -- Appendix A. Coding Procedures for Polarization Analysis -- Notes -- References -- Index.

This "important and timely discussion of judicial politics" sheds light on America's courts as they rule on abortion, gay rights, gun rights, and more (Choice). When the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, some saw the decision as a textbook example of neutral judicial decision making, noting that a Republican Chief Justice joined the Court's Democratic appointees in their vote. Others decried the decision as an example of partisan justice citing a Republican bloc of Court appointees who voted to strike the statute down. Still others argued that the ACA's fate ultimately hinged not on the Court but on the outcome of the 2012 election. These interpretations reflect larger shifts in judicial politics that have emerged in today's increasingly polarized America. Are judges neutral legal umpires, unaccountable partisan activists, or political actors whose decisions conform to'rather than challenge'the democratic will' Drawing on a sweeping survey of hot-button litigation'on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights'across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Thomas M. Keck argues that, while each of these perspectives has merit, each is also misleading. Despite judges' claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges "tyrants in robes," undermining democratic values by imposing their own preferences. Just as often, judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction. As for the argument that the courts are powerless institutions, Keck shows that their decisions have profound political effects. And, while advocates on both the left and right use litigation to achieve their ends, neither side has consistently won. Ultimately, Keck argues, judges respond not simply as umpires, activists, or political actors, but in light of distinctive judicial values and practices