Controlling for District Court Judges' Preferences*

By Hendershot, Marcus E.; Tecklenburg, H. Christian | Justice System Journal, January 1, 2011 | Go to article overview

Controlling for District Court Judges' Preferences*


Hendershot, Marcus E., Tecklenburg, H. Christian, Justice System Journal


This study invokes the common space scores of executives and senators to generate a number of alternative preference point positions for U.S. District Court judges. Tests of these continuous measures against a null case fact specification suggest that the legal model always proves an effective predictor of decisions, but that ideological influences have incrementally grown throughout the last century. Continuous preference measures that assume a traditional norm of senatorial courtesy tend to be robust in limited samples of more recent outcomes. However, measures that account for cyclical changes in interbranch appointment relationships are more effective for temporally lengthy large N samples. The magnitude of these ideological effects is modest, but not unsubstantial. During the recent era of independent executive-vetting practices, the likelihood of a conservative decision is approximately 78 to 85 percent for Democratic appointees, and 85 to 90 percent for Republican appointees.

The adoption of continuous representations of judges' ideological preferences is an empirical issue that increasingly crosses disciplinary boundaries, including those that exist between political science, criminology, sociology, and the legal academy. The transmission of knowledge and best practices among these fields often stems from methodological critiques, with Epstein and King's "The Rules of Inference" (2002a) acting as an exemplar. At the heart of Epstein and King's (2002a:87) assessment of empirical legal research is the question of how best to control for the ideological preferences of judges and justices. Because this topic is central to the long-standing debate over theories of judicial decision making, such as the legal, attitudinal (Segal and Spaeth, 2002), and strategic (Epstein and Knight, 1998) models, it understandably evoked a fervent discourse - immediate reactions included Cross, Heise, and Sisk (2002), Goldsmith and Vermeule (2002), Revesz (2002), Epstein and King's own response (2002b), and more recently Sisk and Heise (2005). Of these, Revesz (2002:180) and Sisk and Heise (2005) most directly address the issue of preference measurement with a respective focus on the lack of measures and the magnitude of ideological influence.1 Thus, in current context, it seems that this debate no longer centers upon whether ideological preferences in fact matter, but rather how much more they contribute over traditional legal explanations.

The development and incorporation of valid, exogenous, and continuous measures of judges' preferences potentially allows socio-Iegal scholars to make inroads on this important question. Epstein and King (2002a) clearly advocate the use of such measures, which over time have become widely available. At the Supreme Court level, Segal and Cover (1989), Bailey and Chang (2001), and Martin and Quinn (2002) offer competing ideal-point estimates. Giles, Hettinger, and Peppers (2001) have generated continuous representations of U.S. Court of Appeals judges' preferences that are based upon Poole and Rosenthal's (1997) common space scores. Those interested in state supreme courts can take advantage of Brace, Langer, and Hall's (2000) partyadjusted measures.

An obvious gap in alternatives to dichotomous controls for judges' ideology can be found for those courts that are primarily concerned with matters of original jurisdiction (e.g., U.S. District Courts), where one reasonably can hypothesize that case facts and precedents should predominate and that the effects of ideology should be limited in scope.2 A skeptic might point out that a lack of continuous measures at this level merely reflects the weakness of attitudinal explanations within the vast majority of cases heard by American courts. This does not entirely appear to be the case, since studies of U.S. District Court decision making (Carp and Rowland, 1983; Rowland and Carp, 1996) provide an array of evidence supporting ideological influence. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Controlling for District Court Judges' Preferences*
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.