The Recusal of American Judges in the Post-Caperton Era: An Empirical Assessment of the Risk of Actual Bias in Decisions Involving Campaign Contributors

Palmer, Vernon Valentine

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1721665

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The interviewees, esteemed as wise by their peers, recommend that judges adopt a magnanimous courtroom management style, act with curiosity and humility, motivate positive changes in people's lives, and, especially when facing difficult decisions, continue to seek understanding and guard against bias (e.g., Palmer, 2010). A central contribution of this research to the literature is the articulation of the psychological experiences and intentions of judges (e.g., attitudes of open-mindedness, curiosity, and magnanimity) that are viewed as the basis of wise judicial process and that can guide courtroom behaviors (e.g., communicating empathy and fostering self-efficacy).…”

Section: Implications For the Process Of Wise Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judicial Wisdom: The Process of Constructing Wise Decisions

Levitt

Dunnavant²

2015

Journal of Constructivist Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surprisingly little research exists on the role of wisdom within legal decision making. To shed light on this topic, we interviewed 11 U.S. judges who were nominated by their peers for their legal wisdom. They were asked to describe their experience of wise legal decision making and the qualities and processes they felt characterize wise judges. Their interviews were subjected to a grounded theory analysis to develop an understanding of the psychological processes and interpersonal performances that constitute wise legal decision making. Among other findings, results identified attitudes in judges that were thought to lead to better decisions, such as an attitude of curiosity. They identified courtroom management styles that were characterized by magnanimity and compassion as instilling public faith in the system, in contrast to a distant or overly adversarial tone. They tended to agree that, when possible and within the confines of the law, rulings oriented toward rehabilitation were preferable to punitive ones. As well, wise judges described the ways they managed personal challenges arising from value conflicts or ambiguous evidence when making decisions. The article provides clarity on the meanings of the term wisdom within the judicial profession and its construction within the alternative discourses of retributive and procedural justice.This research explores the ways in which judges come to form and relay decisions that are not only fair but wise. The interview study examines the common meanings the psychological term wisdom holds and communicates core understandings from judges who were nominated by their peers for their legal wisdom, on how they enact wisdom within their decision making. As well, this constructivist investigation explores how discourses related to retributive and procedural justice differentially frame the relevance and utility of this concept. JUDICIAL WISDOM: IF AND HOWThe current study considers the question of what constitutes wise decision making within a legal context and what qualities or acts characterize wise judges. Although there is a general sense

show abstract

Section: Implications For the Process Of Wise Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judicial Wisdom: The Process of Constructing Wise Decisions

Levitt

Dunnavant²

2015

Journal of Constructivist Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether campaign contributions influence the decisions of justices is even less clear than for decisions by legislators. A number of studies have sought to link contributions and justices' decisions (Cann 2002(Cann , 2007Cann et al 2012;Kang and Shepherd 2011;Liptak and Roberts 2006;McCall 2001McCall , 2003McCall and McCall 2007;McLeod 2008;Palmer 2010;Palmer and Levendis 2008;Shepherd 2009b;Waltenburg and Lopeman 2000;Ware 1999;Williams and Dislear 2007). Most of these studies show that the decisions of at least some justices do tend to align with the interests of the groups that provide financial support for justices' election campaigns.…”

Section: Consistent Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-99-was based on flawed data, which was subsequently corrected and reanalyzed (Palmer 2010);49 the results were generally consistent across the two versions, although the corrected version was still subject to sharp criticism by defenders of the Louisiana Supreme Court (see Tully and Gay 2010). To assess causation, Palmer compared the justices' decisions for the plaintiff or defendant in cases where the plaintiff contributed more to a justice's campaign, the defendant contributed more, and where neither the plaintiff nor defendant contributed.…”

Section: Consistent Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justices on the Ballot

Kritzer¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the "final" version of Chapter 3 of this book. Because of the way that I've produced this extract, there may be a few missing references. 2 The Yankelovich survey was the first national survey focused specifically on the public's views of the courts. There were prior studies (e.g., Curran 1977:232-34) that asked about courts in a nonspecific way; there is no way to know whether respondents in such studies were thinking of federal courts, state courts, or both. 3 One uncertainty in this analysis is how states were coded given that in some states partisan elections are used for some state courts while appointment or the Missouri Plan are used for other courts. 4 The questionnaire along with marginal frequencies for this survey can be found at http://www.justiceatstake.org/media/cms/JASNationalSurveyResults_6F537F99272D4.pdf (last visited June 5, 2013). 5 The four items in the index were "judges are trustworthy and honest," "judges are fair," "courts provide equal justice," and "court decisions are based on facts and law." 6 Gibson measures legitimacy using a factor score that is based heavily on three items: accepts that the decisions of the state supreme court are fair and impartial, believes that the judge can be fair and impartial, considers the state supreme court legitimate (Gibson 2009:1293).While the size of Gibson's national sample was about 350 overall, with only about 100 respondents in states without elections, the reported difference in Gibson's measure of legitimacy is zero to two decimal places (p. 172). 7 David Rottman of the National Center generously made these data available to me for reanalysis. State Year Case Decision MA 2003 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003) State must allow same-sex civil marriage MA 2004 In re Opinions of the Justices to the Senate 802 N.E.2d 565 (2004) Banning marriage, but permitting civil unions, for same-sex couples violates equal protection

show abstract

“…The theory would logically apply with even greater force, however, where structural dependence jeopardizes not just the implementation of judges' ideological preferences, but also their livelihood. In the United States, scholars have begun to investigate the extent to which impending judicial elections affect the decision making of incumbent state judges and the ways in which judicial candidate dependence on campaign support from interest groups affects subsequent decision making when issues of interest to those groups come before the judge (Berdejó & Yuchtman 2013, Huber & Gordon 2004, Palmer 2010. The preponderance of scholarship, however, has been in the transnational arena, where numerous studies have employed a range of indicators to measure the behavioral independence of judges in and across different countries (see, for example, Cent.…”

Section: Behavioral Independence: External and Internal Variationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neoinstitutional scholars, by contrast, argue that the attitudinal model is incomplete and that the political institutions of which judges are a part and with which judges interact also influence the decision making of independent judges. Thus, for example, strategic choice scholars, discussed earlier, hypothesize that judges sometimes temper their decisions strategically, to mollify and thereby ward off intrusions from other institutions, such as the legislative or executive branches, that could thwart or nullify the policy choices judges seek to implement (see Berdejó & Yuchtman 2013, Epstein & Knight 1998, Huber & Gordon 2004, Palmer 2010. Another subgroup of neoinstitutionalists, the historical interpretivists, argue that judges are influenced by the history and institutional culture of the judiciary itself and that the judiciary's institutional culture inculcates preferences-including preferences for the rule of law-that can affect the choices independent judges make (Smith 1988).…”

Section: Behavioral Independence: External and Internal Variationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judicial Independence as an Organizing Principle

Geyh

2014

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term judicial independence has a range of meanings and applications. It is variously employed in normative and descriptive ways; in absolute and relative terms; as a theoretical construct and a practical safeguard; in regard to judges individually and collectively; as an end in itself and a means to other ends; as a matter of hard law and soft norm; and in relation to the political branches of government, the media, the electorate, litigants, interest groups, and judges themselves. This article creates a structure within which to situate the judicial independence literature, to the end of positioning judicial independence as a useful, if polymorphous, organizing principle that delineates a foundational component of the judicial role.

show abstract

The Recusal of American Judges in the Post-Caperton Era: An Empirical Assessment of the Risk of Actual Bias in Decisions Involving Campaign Contributors

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Judicial Wisdom: The Process of Constructing Wise Decisions

Judicial Wisdom: The Process of Constructing Wise Decisions

Justices on the Ballot

Judicial Independence as an Organizing Principle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About