Obama’s Judicial Legacy: The Final Chapter

Slotnick, Elliot E.; Schiavoni, Sara; Goldman, Sheldon

doi:10.1086/693347

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, scholars have noted distinctive behavior among groups of judges appointed by the same president (Slotnick, Schiavoni, and Goldman 2017). Each White House vetting process prioritizes certain characteristics, making “Obama judges” different than “Trump judges.” These criteria create a cohort effect.…”

Section: Group Memberships and Judicial Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Intergroup Foundations of Policy Influence

Hinkle

Nelson

2018

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most decisions about policy adoption require preference aggregation, which makes it difficult to determine how and when an individual can influence policy change. Examining how frequently a judge is cited offers insight into this question. Drawing upon the psychological concept of social identity, we suggest that shared group memberships can account for differences in policy influence. We investigate this possibility using the demographic and professional group memberships of federal circuit court judges and an original dataset of citations among all published search and seizure cases from federal circuit courts from 1990 to 2010. The results indicate that shared professional characteristics do tend to lead to ingroup favoritism in citation decisions while only partial evidence of such a pattern emerges for demographic group memberships. There is evidence of ingroup favoritism among female and minority judges but none for male or white judges. Overall, judges appear to generally have greater influence on judges with shared characteristics. The findings have vital implications for our understanding of the diversification of policy-making institutions.

show abstract

Section: Group Memberships and Judicial Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Intergroup Foundations of Policy Influence

Hinkle

Nelson

2018

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the last decade, there have been growing discussions in the U.S. and internationally about the importance of increasing judicial diversity, predominantly focused on increasing representation related to race and gender (Arrington, 2020; Breger, 2018; Hernandez & Navarro, 2018; Johnson, 2017; Sen, 2017; Slotnick et al, 2017; Thurston, 2019). However, less attention has been paid to professional diversity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosecuting from the bench? Examining sources ofpro‐prosecutionbias in judges

Berryessa

Dror

McCormack

2022

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although judges may be well intended when taking an oath to be impartial when they reach the bench, psychological and legal literature suggests that their legal approaches, behaviour, and decision‐making processes are subconsciously impacted by biases stemming from and influenced by their attitudes, ideology, backgrounds, and previous experiences. Drawing from prior models of sources of bias in legal contexts and existing literature on judges, this paper discusses and models potential sources of pro‐prosecution bias in judges with prosecutorial backgrounds. These include (1) professional and self‐selection into the judiciary; (2) prosecutorial socialization and attitudes that can shape a prosecutorial mindset; and (3) the effects of common unconscious biases, confirmation bias and role induced bias, that may shape judicial behaviour through formed beliefs and approaches stemming from the prosecutorial mindset and selection into the judiciary. As the vast majority of judges are former prosecutors in the U.S. as well as in many other countries, this paper considers possible ways to deal with pro‐prosecution bias and the potential importance of diversifying judges' professional backgrounds.

show abstract

“…While women occupy an increasing number of seats on the federal bench (Slotnick et al 2017) and constitute roughly 50 percent of recent law school graduates (American Bar Association 2016), relatively few women argue at the Supreme Court (Sarver, Kaheny, and Szmer 2008). Because of the low numbers of women at the Court, gender remains salient during oral arguments (e.g., Kaheny, Szmer, and Sarver 2011; Shih et al 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Mere Presence: Gender Norms in Oral Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court

Gleason

2019

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women are less successful than their male counterparts at Supreme Court oral arguments under certain circumstances. However, existing work relies on mere presence rather than on any action female attorneys take in their argument. Drawing on recent work that stresses gender is performative, I argue success for women at oral arguments is tied to conformance with gender norms, subtle and unconscious expectations of how men and women should communicate. Via a quantitative textual analysis of the 2004–2016 terms, I find attorneys are more successful when their oral arguments are more consistent with gender norms. Specifically, male attorneys are rewarded for using less emotional language whereas female attorneys are successful when using more emotional language. This study represents a more nuanced and performative understanding of gender at oral arguments. These results raise normative concerns about how effective women are at the Supreme Court.

show abstract

Obama’s Judicial Legacy: The Final Chapter

Cited by 11 publications

References 7 publications

The Intergroup Foundations of Policy Influence

The Intergroup Foundations of Policy Influence

Prosecuting from the bench? Examining sources ofpro‐prosecutionbias in judges

Beyond Mere Presence: Gender Norms in Oral Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About