Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961–1964

Goldman, Sheldon

doi:10.2307/1953364

Cited by 112 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is well established that there are frequently partisan differences in the voting behavior of appeals court judges (Goldman 1966;1975). The existence of such partisan differences raises the possibility that the changes in the decisional trends of the courts of appeals may be due to changes in the partisan composition of the lower courts rather than to any Supreme Court influence.…”

Section: Impact On Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These considerations suggest the need for caution in interpreting the results presented above. However, it should be noted that these same cautions should apply to virtually all studies of voting behavior (e.g., Baum 1980;Carp and Rowland 1983;Goldman 1975) which attempt comparisons across time. Nevertheless, whether the identity of who wins is directly affected by judges' responses to changing Supreme Court mandates or is affected indirectly as the parties to cases change their behavior in response to prior decisions, changes in who wins have a political significance which makes an analysis of such impact important in its own right.…”

Section: Impact On Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals

Songer¹,

Sheehan²

1990

The Western Political Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Impact On Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact On Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals

Songer¹,

Sheehan²

1990

The Western Political Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the dynamics of federal court appointments involve actors from each branch of the national government, presidential, congressional, and judicial scholars have all been interested in the federal court appointment process as an exercise of the prerogatives reserved to each by the Constitution (Cameron, Cover, and Segal 1990;Cameron and Segal 1999;Goldman 1966;Gottschall 1983). This interest has generated detailed descriptive accounts of the process and the changes in it over time (Allison 1996;Barrow, Zuk, and Gryski 1996;Chase 1972;Goldman 1997;Hartley and Holmes 1997;McFeeley 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

To Advise and Consent: The Senate and Lower Federal Court Nominations, 1977-1998

Martinek¹,

Kemper²,

winkle³

2002

The Journal of Politics

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using nominations to Article III district and appeals court judgeships, we test a model of senatorial treatment of presidential nominations to the lower federal bench, looking both at outcome (whether or not a nomination culminates in confirmation) and process (the length of time it takes the Senate to process a nomination). We find evidence that nominee quality matters, as does composition of the Judiciary Committee and pending judicial nominations. Contrary to charges made in the popular press, however, neither race nor gender makes a difference for ultimate success or failure of a nomination. Duration analysis reveals that race (though not gender) does matter for district court nomination processing time. We also find presidential year and term to matter for both levels of court but the outcome of the Bork nomination to affect only appeals court nominations.

show abstract

“…In fact, this same conception of ideologies surrounding labor cases was adopted in the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al. ) and with regard to federal appellate courts (Songer ; Goldman ).…”

Section: A Theory Of Appellate Court Decision Making In Unfair Labor mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Taratoot¹

2013

Law & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have long been simultaneously concerned with the factors that influence appellate court decision making and the level of deference that the courts allow for agencies. However, scholars have treated administrative agencies as unitary actors with a single level of decision making, but in reality agency decisions involve input from multiple actors within the agency. I argue that appellate courts rely more heavily on decisions made by actors in the bureaucracy with greater levels of expertise and who are less politically motivated as cues in their decision making. This theory is bolstered by legal precedent in the area of administrative law that suggests courts should more heavily rely on the expert judgment of administrative judges. Thus, as a result of their increased expertise, appearance of political neutrality, and institutional support, courts will be more reliant on decisions issued by administrative law judges (ALJs) than those issued by the political appointees as cues in their decision making. Using over 300 unfair labor practice decisions issued by the federal appeals courts on review of cases from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), I develop a model of appeals court decision making in unfair labor practice cases as a function of the initial decision of the ALJ, the final order of the political appointees of the NLRB, case characteristics, the ideology of the deciding appeals court panel, Supreme Court influence, and economic factors. Though the ideology of the court plays a role in its decision making, cues from ALJ decision making and that of the Board weigh more heavily in appellate court outcomes. However, cues from ALJ decisions play the most consistent role in appellate court decision making, even in more difficult cases. This has important implications for agency strategy in courts and suggests that future research should consider the influence of lower‐level decision making over appellate court decision making in the area of administrative law.

show abstract

Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961–1964

Cited by 112 publications

References 8 publications

Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals

Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals

To Advise and Consent: The Senate and Lower Federal Court Nominations, 1977-1998

The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About