Category Archives: politics

Getting elected – what Google can do for you (or to you)

Want to get elected? Get the power of Google behind you – just ask Scott Brown of Massachusetts.  As elections become increasingly web dependent, Google is poised to be a power player and offers some compelling advantages given its top spot in the search engine marketplace. See more on this on Madisonian.net blog. Want more? Check out the Google Policy Blog’s top 5 strategies for political campaigns: Continue reading

Unemployment is Only Part of the Problem

Calculated Risk has an excellent graphic on the unemployment/underemployment/reserve labor force problem by income band.

Tell me a story about the political implications of this breakdown. My guess: big loss of seats at midterm. Check out the gradient on intrade’s “Republicans to control the House after 2010 elections” graphic.

CFP: Congress in the classroom

CFP: CONGRESS IN THE CLASSROOM 2010

* Deadline: April 15, 2010 *

Continue reading

Air America, RIP

Air America files for Chapter 7.

What’s the outcome? I doubt much of an impact. The footprint was too small (unless counting satellite radio), and the listener base too mobile to worry about that media source. Of course, this all part of larger and broader themes in communications, including delveraging among larger media shops and continued failures of papers. The papers get the coverage, while the smallish radio stations fly under the radar.

Who’s next?

Surf’s up! SCOTUS overturns campaign spending limits

Ta-da!

The 5-to-4 decision was a doctrinal earthquake but also a political and practical one. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.

How the public views Congress

The public’s view of Congress has slipped since 2002, at least with regard to perceptions of honesty and ethical standards. Here’s the trend:

Gallup Poll

Here’s what recent views look like by party – apparently increased bad feelings cross party lines:

Changes in past year

How do other occupations fare? Check it out below the fold. [hat tip Bioethics Blog]

Continue reading

Do political independents matter in elections?

Independents important?

Or, perhaps we should ask – how much do they count? On the Monkey Cage Blog, John Sides takes on three claims regarding political independents:

1) Independents are the largest partisan group.

2) Independents are actually independent.

3) Change in the opinions of independents is always consequential.

Or is their relative importance a myth?

He argues that none of these claims accurately depict political independents in the election game and that independents are neither very independent thinking nor very consequential as a group. This view runs counter to popular media accounts of the importance of independent voters in many political elections. Opposing views to Sides’s arguments can be found here and here.

Of moneyball, rankings, and productivity

Tax Prof Blogger Paul Caron posts on an offshoot of moneyball with an analogy to volleyball – asking what measures we might consider in the way of non-traditional sabermetric statistics for academic productivity. While this is interesting, I’m not sure if we’ve even gotten people on board with the value of traditional sabermetric stats for academic productivity yet. His post does provide a nice summary and listing of prior blogging on moneyball relative to academia. In a related note of shameless promotion, I provide Binghamton Political Science Department’s rankings for moneyball productivity in political science published in the Hix 2004 study of international political science productivity in Political Studies Review (study focuses on 1998 to 2002):

Number of articles relative to faculty size: #8 (between Columbia and Geneva)

Scholarly impact (citations) relative to faculty size: #10 (between Ohio State University and Cardiff)

New wave in Empirical Research on Law and Courts:

First, I would like to thank Jeff for the nice intro and for inviting me to blog this week. Second, you should all know I have not done this before so I am hoping you will bear with me … I guess we’ll see if any interesting thoughts develop.
My work is on legal decision making – or legal cognition – how decision makers think about cases and make decisions in the context of accepted norms of legal reasoning. Basically, I think judges and practitioners who have been socialized in the legal tradition take rules regarding their own authority and appropriate sources of legal reasoning quite seriously. But I also acknowledge attitudes matter and they matter a lot. The interesting puzzle from my perspective is how decision makers who believe they are using objective decision criteria reach legal conclusions that support their policy preferences again and again. I’ve used the paradigm of “motivated reasoning ” from psychology to get at some of these issues. The goal is to find out (1) whether legal decision makers are subject to biased decision processes in the context of using accepted norms and (2) what the objective limits on biased reasoning processes might be. The book Jeff refers to in his intro Law, Politics and Perception: How Policy Preference Influence Legal Reasoning represents my take on these questions based on experimental research.
More broadly, there has been an increased interest in the law and courts subfield in using theory and methods from psychology to explain legal decision making phenomena. I think this is a very good thing. There is for instance a forthcoming volume edited by David Klein and Greg Mitchell describing the “Psychology of Judicial Decision Making.” Over and above the work on legal cognition done by researchers like Brandon Bartels at GWU and Paul Collins at North Texas U, researchers are starting to think about and study how other psychological constructs like motivation (ex. Larry Baum at OSU, Justin Wedeking at UK) and even emotion (ex. Terry Marony at Vanderbilt Law) plays a role in decision making outcomes. Scholars are also trying to think more about the individual and group cognition process which each play a role in appellate decision making. How does one influence the other? Are judges ALWAYS single minded seekers of policy when they go into conference discussions or might they be open to alternative arguments and persuasion by their colleagues? Does it depend on the type of case? (Note: “salience” is another psychological term by the way.) Do terms like “strategy” or “reasoned compromise” better describe the group dynamic that occurs resulting in majority opinions? How could we tell the difference between the two? Are there non-traditional methods that may better “get at” these sorts of questions?
I for one am looking forward to contributing to, and learning from, this next generation of interdisciplinary empirical research at the intersection of law, political science and psychology. I think we have much to learn and that findings will have important implications across multiple disciplines speaking to issues from basic psychology to the legitimacy of judicial institutions in our constitutional system.

Introducing guest blogger Eileen Braman

Eileen Braman

 

Please welcome to the Voir Dire blog, our guest, Professor Eileen Braman. Eileen is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Indiana, Bloomington. She earned her J.D. at Fordham University School of Law in 1996 and her Ph.D. at the Ohio State University in 2004. Her research has appeared in the Journal of Politics, the American Journal of Political Science, and Politics & Religion, among other outlets. She has recently published Law, Politics, and Perception: How Policy Preferences Influence Legal Reasoning with the University of Virginia Press. We look forward to reading her posts :-)

Benching the judge-umpire analogy?

Professor Aaron Zelinsky has recently posted “The Justice as Commissioner: Benching the Judge-Umpire Analogy” (forthcoming, Yale Law Journal). Given that this analogy gets tossed around a good bit in Law & Courts and ELS circles, this should be a good conversation starter. At the very least, Voir Dire guest blogger Chris Bonneau should have something to say about this :-)

The abstract is available below the fold [ hat tip Sports Law Blog]

Continue reading

Evidence based medicine?

If you can pry yourself away from C-Span and the healthcare debate for a moment, the NYT Magazine has an article this week that addresses, arguably, an even more fundamental aspect of medicine – how it’s performed and how care decisions are made. The recent rise in interest in “evidence based medicine” has been perhaps curiously controversial (at least to me) since the inverse situation would seem to be “non-evidence based medicine”. Okay, to be fair, it would more likely be “intuition and personal experience”.

Continue reading

Introducing the new US Supreme Court Database Website!

Washington University professor Andrew Martin and his collaborators have recently released their US Supreme Court Database website. It updates, enhances, and streamlines Spaeth’s original data set. This project looks to be a significant development in the field and  a very useful and reliable resource for law and courts scholars interested in studying SCOTUS. The website can be found here, and Andrew’s formal announcement is available below the fold.

Continue reading

Introducing guest blogger, Melinda Gann Hall

Dear Voir Dire readers, please join me in welcoming professor Melinda Gann Hall to our blog. While she needs     no introduction, I’ll provide a little bio information for anyone who is doesn’t follow law and courts or state           politics work and is therefore unfamiliar with her scholarship. Melinda earned her Ph.D. at the University of    New  Orleans    in 1983 and is now Professor and Distinguished Faculty at Michigan State University, department  of  political  science.

Her publications, awards, and professional leadership positions are too numerous to list here, but you can find her vitae here. She (along with Chris Bonneau) has recently penned a book, In Defense of Judicial Elections and she is also a co-creator (with Paul Brace) of the well-known State Supreme Court Data Project, funded by NSF. We look forward to her posts and I am sure that you will enjoy her insights.

Hawaii and healthcare

The New York Times reports on the Hawaii healthcare system and how it compares against the rest of the nation. Since 1974 the state has required all employers to provide healthcare benefits to any employee working twenty hours a week or more. As the chart at the left indicates this situation has not led to an explosion in health care costs.

“But perhaps the most intriguing lesson from Hawaii has to do with costs. This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation. Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest.

Hawaii residents live longer than people in the rest of the country, recent surveys have shown, and the state’s health care system may be one reason. In one example, Hawaii has the nation’s highest incidence of breast cancer but the lowest death rate from the disease.”

But the system is certainly not perfect:

“There are clear problems with Hawaii’s system. Hospitals on the outer islands are small and losing money. With unemployment rising, so, too, are the ranks of the uninsured — which is now 10.7 percent of nonelderly adults. Only Massachusetts has a lower share of uninsured adults, and the national share is 20.4 percent. And there is growing evidence that as the economy has slowed and premiums have risen, employers have hired more part-time workers who are ineligible for benefits.”

It might be interesting to hear what Hawaiian policy makers think of the proposals currently circulating in DC. Given the state’s success, it is rather surprising that other states haven’t done more experimenting with such a system.

Protecting insurance companies ‘PSA’

A good ‘public service announcement’ from the folks at “Funny or Die” with a lot of TV faces you might recognize. Somehow it’s kind of funny to see ad executive Don Draper taking a poke at insurance executives – still works though – but doesn’t everything John Hamm seem just a little better? [hat tip Rorie Spill Solberg on FB]

Holding narratives accountable

Professor Linda Edwards (UNLV Law) has recently posted “Once Upon a Time in Law: Myth, Metaphor, and Authority” on SSRN. In the paper, she evaluates the use of narratives in legal authority and suggests that narratives are pervasive in the law and that we should learn to recognize their presence and hold them accountable by probing and questioning their factual accuracy, appropriateness, and utility. It is likely that her basic approach would provide useful leverage in analyzing domestic policy making, international politics, and even interpersonal relationships — all environments in which the use of narratives are plentiful — and perhaps sometimes questionable. [hat tip to Legal Theory Blog] The abstract is provided below the fold.

Continue reading

Decriminalization in Mexico

Apparently Mexico is experimenting with drug decriminalization and a number of popular drugs are legal to possess – as depicted in the above photo (showing roughly the amount you can legally possess). More here.

A “grass” roots movement for marijuana legalization?

David Simon comments on the growing movement on Prawfs Blawg. Perhaps most interesting is his observation that since the medical marijuana laws require ailments for which almost everyone over 45 qualifies, marijuana could soon become an old person’s drug. Maybe this movement needs to start holding town hall meetings on legalization. They could be held at the same time as the healthcare policy town hall meetings – side by side. At the end of the day, we’d have no healthcare policy, but no one would care and they’d all be a little hungry and giggly.

America’s most trusted newscaster?

Personally, I was pulling for Ted Baxter, but:

hat tip Buzzfeed. Don’t get too happy Stewart, I don’t think Fox News was considered in this Time Magazine online poll.

‘For the times they are a changin’ – explaining justice drift

I recently posted on SSRN a paper by myself and two Georgia graduate students, Brian Levey and Justin Moeller. The title is: “For The Times They Are A Changin: Explaining U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ Voting Through Identification of Micro-Publics.” The abstract is available below the fold:

Continue reading

The Place of Women on the Court

In today’s New York Times Magazine, Emily Bazelon has a very interesting interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – a small sample below the fold:

Continue reading

The Goals of Campaign Finance Law

First of all, many thanks to Jeff and Andy for inviting me to guest blog this summer at Voir Dire. My primary interests are in elections and American government broadly, but the ongoing controversy surrounding judicial elections, along with the encouragement of friends & collaborators, continues to pull me further into the study of judicial politics.

Some of my recent projects have led me to wonder exactly what values one should seek to promote in a campaign finance system. I’m interested in your thoughts, but let me throw out two: preventing corruption and promoting the spread of information.

Corruption is a natural concern with campaign finance. While there are clear examples (think Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson), the evidence for general corruption is limited. A possibility of bias, however, remains (perhaps particularly important given the “probability of bias” standard invoked in the Massey case Chris Bonneau explicated earlier on Voir Dire).

On the other hand, spending money seems to be a necessity for disseminating electoral information to the public. The fast food industry spends about $4 billion each year to make sure we’re well informed about the virtues of burgers and fries; this is about twice the amount spent on the 2008 presidential election. Shouldn’t we know at least as much about candidates for the president as we know about the latest burger or the new McCafe? What’s more, Coleman and Manna (2000) show that higher campaign spending serves to inform voters, enabling them to make better decisions. Hall and Bonneau (2008) show that increased campaign spending leads to higher rates of voter participation in judicial elections that are oftentimes otherwise low-turnout affairs. In this sense, restricting campaign spending may prevent elections from accomplishing their key goal: enabling citizens to make informed decisions between a set of candidates and the policies they are likely to pursue.

As I think about how to balance the two, I’m struck by two things. First, neither value explicitly limits the amount of campaign spending, as long as funds are acquired in a way that limits the possibility of bias. As such, individuals who have expressed discomfort with Obama’s (and previously Bush’s) prolific fundraising, are objecting to the amount of money spent in politics, which is not necessarily problematic in terms of these values (so on what basis might it be problematic?). Second, if one is balancing a possibility of bias against the certainty of the democratic goods that come with campaign, how strong must the possibility of bias be to justify more strict campaign finance regulations?

Sotomayor Rated “Well Qualified” by the ABA

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Judiciary has unanimously rated Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor “well qualified”—the highest rating a nominee can receive. As a District Court nominee, a “substantial majority” of the panel gave her a “qualified” rating, while a minority rated her “well qualified.” As a Court of Appeals nominee, she received a “well qualified” rating from a “substantial majority” of the panel, while a minority of the panel rated her “qualified.”

Howard Dean on American healthcare …

… in Esquire magazine. A sample below the fold.

Continue reading

Why the Supreme Court Got It Wrong in the Massey case

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Caperton v. Massey (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdf).  In this landmark ruling, the Court held that a judge must recuse himself/herself if there was an appearance of impropriety.  In this case, the CEO of Massey Energy (which had a case in the legal pipeline that was likely to be heard by the West Virginia Supreme Court) contributed over $2.5 million of his own money to a 527 group called And For the Sake of the Kids.  This group targeted the incumbent state supreme court justice Warren McGraw (and thus favored his opponent Brent Benjamin).  McGraw lost the election.  When the Massey case was heard by the West Virginia Court, Benjamin refused to recuse himself and voted with the 3-2 majority to overturn a multimillion dollar verdict.  The case is slightly more nuanced than that, but the above facts capture the essence of the case.

By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was a violation of due process for Benjamin to not disqualify himself.  Justice Kennedy wrote:  “We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions—when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.”  It is important to note that the Court did not find (or allege) that Benjamin’s vote was “bought.”  Rather, the mere appearance of bias was good enough.

Now, on the face of it, it is hard to argue with the Court’s conclusion.  After all, we can’t have biased judges hearing cases.  But, the Court’s conclusions were driven by a selective reading of the available evidence.  For example, 50% of West Virginia incumbents have lost their bids for reelection over the past 2 decades.  Incumbent defeats are not new events in WV.  Second, every newspaper in the state except one endorsed Benjamin over McGraw.  Third, the election was held in 2004.  West Virginia elects its judges on a partisan ballot, and West Virginia supported the reelection of George W. Bush.  It is not surprising that a down-ballot Democrat might lose under these conditions.  But the most damning piece of evidence arguing against the Court’s conclusion was a press release from the WV Supreme Court (http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/press/march2_09.htm).  Of the 5 cases involving Massey Energy decided by the WV Supreme Court, Benjamin voted against Massey in 4 of them! Indeed, he supported $90.5 million in damages against Massey.  The only time he supported Massey was in the Caperton case, where he voted to overturn a $50 million verdict.  So, the CEO of Massey energy spent over $2.5 million of his own money to help elect Brent Benjamin…and Benjamin repaid him by costing his company $40 million.  Hardly the stuff of justice for sale.

The Chief Justice’s dissent goes into the plethora of unanswered questions raised by the case—I’ll not summarize them here.  I will close, though, with what I think is a likely outcome of the decision.  A conservative interest group in say, Texas, will now decide to support a liberal judge for the Court.  If the liberal wins, they can argue he/she should recuse himself/herself under Massey.  If the liberal loses, all the better since the candidate who is closer to the group will end up winning (and not have to worry about recusal since there is no appearance of impropriety).  Kennedy’s opinion stressed the “extraordinary” nature of the Massey case.  And maybe this case is like Bush v. Gore—good for one time only.  But I fear the Court has opened up a huge can of worms, and provided no guidance as to how lower courts should interpret and implement the decision.

What Drew You to the Study of Law and Courts?

I’d like to extend my sincere thanks to Jeff and Andy for the opportunity to guest blog on Voir Dire. Hopefully, the readers will find what I have to say at least marginally interesting. I plan to cover a number of topics, some academic, some not so much. Jeff and Andy were kind enough to give me fairly substantial leeway in terms of my posts and I plan to take them up on that offer.

I’ll begin with one of my favorite questions to ask prospective graduate students and faculty members: What drew you to the study of law and courts? Over the years, I’ve heard a wide range of answers to this question and they never cease to fascinate me.

I’ll share an abridged version of own narrative.

My father is an attorney who spent 20 plus years as a county legislator. My mother is a schoolteacher. Growing up, my parents instilled in me a strong sense of the importance of these career paths, although I was drawn most heavily to the law. I entered the University of Scranton fully set on going to law school. I could see the “Collins and Son, P.C.” sign in my head.

However, during the course of my studies at Scranton, two things occurred. First, I spent a summer working as a law librarian. This gave me a keen sense of the day-to-day activities of lawyers. I came to realize that the romantic view of lawyers often portrayed on television and in the movies rarely meshed with the real business of attorneys, even litigators. Second, I became fascinated with the life of academics. It occurred to me that a career spent educating, researching, and never leaving a college campus was exceptionally appealing. Indeed, I recall speaking with a faculty member at Scranton about my career path. When asked what I was interested in doing post-undergraduate, I replied “I kind of like your job.” With those words, I finally managed to get the courage up to explore something other than law school.

So there you have it. The offspring of an attorney/politician and a schoolteacher grows up to teach political science and law. It seems kind of silly that it took me into my early twenties to figure that one out.

Issue agenda setting on SCOTUS

Our paper, “Agenda Setting, Issue Priorities and Organizational Maintenance: The U.S. Supreme Court, 1955 to 1994″ (c0-authored with William Gillespie) is now available for download on Social Science Research Network here. The abstract is available after the jump:

Continue reading

Recommended Reading: Measuring Judicial Activism

Frank Cross and Stefanie Lindquist’s “Meauring Judicial Activism” is now available on Oxford University Press.  Which U.S. Supreme Court Justices are the most activist in their jurisprudential decisions? Check out this book and you’ll see that answering this question is perhaps a more complex endeavor than you might have originally thought. Here’s some ad copy for the book:

Continue reading

Jack Donaghy on Detroit

On the Huffington Post,  Jack “30 Rock” Donaghy (ok, actually it’s just Alec Baldwin) goes off on Detroit automakers and Congress. It’s quite informative and entertaining. Here’s a taste:

The heads of these corporations did not spend the last thirty years lying in bed each night, sleepless. They did not turn their spouses in the wee hours and say, “How do I serve the automotive needs of the American public and better protect their health and safety AND help them conserve energy?” They never said that.

Instead, they spent billions of dollars attempting to bribe the Congress to avoid putting in seat belts and air bags, installing catalytic converters and reaching more ambitious fuel efficiency standards. For the most part, they succeeded. Congress approached those issues with the same combination of sentiment, fealty and fear that Detroit’s customers accepted. It was said to be “bad for Detroit.” Little did we know that falling for that bull for so long was what was bad for Detroit. Now, the American automotive industry, once the industrial pride of this country and a source of so many great paying jobs that changed the economic fortunes of millions of Americans in assembly, parts, dealerships and service, is about to go away.

But what would Kenneth do?

In the interest of balanced media I present Kim Jong-il’s view of Mr. Baldwin:

But I must give Baldwin the chance to respond (look for it at about 1:25 into the clip):

[hat tip to Law and Letters Blog]

On elite education, Supreme Court appointments, and meritocracy

Following up on our last post on elite education and academic careers, we now look into the role of elite education and Supreme Court appointments – specifically, President Obama’s upcoming appointment to the Court. On the pol sci Law and Courts discussion listserve participants have debated the role of elite education in considering candidates for the Court.

Some argue that nominees must either have an elite JD degree or a darn good reason for why they do not have one. Others argue that an elite education isn’t so crucial and that the president should be more concerned with the potential nominee’s present abilities and their achievements over the entire life span rather than an admission decision that was made when the nominee was 22 years of age and in most situations was based primarily on their parents’ socio-economic status. Perhaps providing some insight on the relative utility of an elite degree is Walter Kern, whose new book “Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation  of an Overachiever”  details his experience at Princeton. Here’s some ad copy from the book’s website:

“Percentile is destiny in America.”

So says Walter Kirn, a peerless observer and interpreter of American life, in this whip-smart memoir of his own long strange trip through American education. Working his way up the ladder of standardized tests, extracurricular activities, and class rankings, Kirn launched himself eastward from his rural Minnesota hometown to the ivy-covered campus of Princeton University. There he found himself not in a temple of higher learning so much as an arena for gamesmanship, snobbery, social climbing, ass-kissing, and recreational drug use, where the point of literature classes was to mirror the instructor’s critical theories and actual reading of the books under consideration was optional. Just on the other side of the “bell curve’s leading edge” loomed a complete psychic collapse.
LOST IN THE MERITOCRACY reckons up the costs of a system where the point is simply to keep accumulating points and never to look back—or within. It’s a remarkable book that suggests the first step toward intellectual fulfillment is getting off the treadmill that is the American meritocracy. Every American who has spent years of his or her life there will experience many shocks of recognition while reading Walter Kirn’s sharp, rueful, and often funny book—and likely a sense of liberation at its end.

You might also check out his recent interview on the Colbert Report.  Uh oh, I hope that this doesn’t upset the elites. And what if Obama picks a non-elite nominee? What will we do? How will we live? Quick, play me off, Keyboard Cat!

Dorf on the future of graduate/professional programs and “Great Research Universities”

Michael Dorf’s blog includes an interesting post that touches on a lot of related, yet distinct concerns (grad school, tenure, viability of Great Research Universities, etc.). I will touch on just two. First, the referenced NYT article makes an important point about the graduate school model and its possible need of revision. Especially compelling is this idea that you are taking graduate students’ time, effort, and possibly money and they are left largely unemployable.

Continue reading

On the future of state courts research

I recently posted on SSRN an early version of a short essay that is forthcoming at Justice System Journal, “On The Future of State Courts Research.” The essay emanates from a panel at last year’s American Political Science Association meeting in which the participants discussed trends and concerns in the study of state courts. The panel was put together by Steve Wasby (SUNY Albany) and included myself, Melinda Gann Hall (MSU), Matthew Kleiman (National Center For State Courts),David Steelman (National Center For State Courts), Matthew Streb (NIU), and Alan Tarr (Rutgers-Camden). Here’s a small excerpt below the fold:

Continue reading

Recent shift in racial incarceration disparity

A recent study found that the nation is experiencing a shift in racial incarceration disparity – minority incarceration rates are down and white incarceration rates are up. The primary reasons cited are the development of drug courts and the recent escalation of meth use and dealing. See the Faculty Lounge for more on this. However, the study might want to consider the effects of policy agenda setting and enforcement examined in our recent paper on racial enforcement disparity or another paper  of mine that focuses on legal changes in the war on drugs that differentially affect immigrants. (See also, a subsequent opinion by SCOTUS on this topic).

What is the “King of Careers” now?

A New York Times article questions what will take the place of finance for the nation’s “best and brightest” after the fall of Wall Street. Apparently, the economic downturn has driven more undergraduates into public administration  and government programs than in days past: 

Graduate schools of government and public policy are seeing a surge of applications. In a survey of its members released last week, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration found that 82 percent reported an increase in applications this year, and many saw the largest percentage jumps in several years, or ever. The most-cited reason was the expectation by students that government will be hiring.

Still, the appeal of public sector careers extends beyond job openings, say school officials. The laissez-faire presumption that government is not the solution but the problem, dating back to the Reagan era, has been cast aside, they say.

The government’s need to step in with financial bailouts and recovery programs to steady the economy is seen as the immediate proof, they say, but not the only one. The environment, energy and health care also pose huge, complex challenges. “Young people today understand that government has a powerful role to play in solving these problems,” said Sandra Archibald, dean of the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington, where applications this year are up 26 percent.

Government school officials also point to an Obama effect: his election as an endorsement of government activism.

What does Miranda mean?

And what should it mean? The Simple Justice Blog has an interesting post on these questions and discusses a case that might make the SCOTUS docket which may redefine the parameters of the famous Miranda warnings.

Race in the War on Drugs: The Social Consequences of Presidential Rhetoric

The Voir Dire team has recently publicly posted on the Social Science Research Network their paper from the Empirical Legal Studies conference, “Race in the War on Drugs: The Social Consequences of Presidential Rhetoric.”  The abstract is available below the fold.

Continue reading

Judicial decision making and the “Foxermeasaluppycat”

Last week I attended the “What’s Law Got To Do With It?” conference on judicial decision making, hosted by Indiana School of Law. I encourage you to check out the above hyperlinked website for the conference since it provides many of the papers that were presented. The conference was put together by Charlie Geyh and others at Indiana law  and Charlie also acted as the conference master of ceremonies. In providing some introductory comments for the conference Charlie suggested an aggregated judicial animal to represent the different schools of thought on the nature of judicial decision making. His animal is named the Foxermeasaluppycat.

I imagine some explanation is in order. I will only give a very brief explanation here, Charlie can chime in if he’d like. 

The Fox = the strategic judicial actor who seeks to get his or her preferred outcomes brought to fruition through sophisticated, forward thinking actions.

The Ermine = the judicial actor who seeks to follow the rule of law. The idea here is that in jolly old England a number of politicians wore robes, but only the judges had ermine trimmed robes – suggesting that they were different from other government actors and above politics – they faithfully followed the requirements of law and outcomes reflected their understanding of what the law demands.

The Weasel = the judicial actor whose decision making reflects their underlying world views or attitudes (aka the Attitudinal model). As we know, an ermine is just the fancier type of the lowly weasel. Whether this means that judges see facts and law through the colored lens of their world view (and decide accordingly) or simply seek to implement their policy preferences through their position of power (perhaps “low politics”?) is debatable, but the idea is that outcomes are correlated with judicial ideology.

The Puppy = This judicial actor cares very much about how he or she is perceived and regarded. Like the young dog, they want to know that others think well of them and are concerned with providing decisions that foster good will with the public and other political actors.

The Cat = This judicial actor cares about their specific self interest and personal advancement. This view is rooted in economic theories of judicial behavior and is distinguishable from the Fox. So, for instance, a judge might rule in a certain way so as to facilitate their advancement in the judicial ranks.

And there you have it … the Foxermeasaluppycat. Certainly, not everyone will agree with any given one or combination of these theories of how judges make decisions. Indeed, one of the high points of the conference was the opportunity to hear some esteemed judges thoughtfully respond to academics’ ideas of how judicial decisions are made. While, unfortunately, their remarks are not available on the webpage, I will assure you that they made some very, very good points and were also quite entertaining. In the end I hope that both judges and academics learned something valuable.

Update: I understand that the videotaped conference proceedings may be made available on the conference website in the near future and that the papers and judge remarks will be forthcoming in book form.

SCOTUS to take on state judicial campaigning

… from the SCOTUS Blog:

The Supreme Court will hold oral argument on Caperton, et al., v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., et al. (08-322) at 10 a.m. on Tuesday.  Theodore B. Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington will argue for Hugh Caperton and the Harman group of companies.  Andrew L. Frey of Mayer Brown in New York will argue for the Massey company.

—————-

Amid reports of a recent “explosion” in campaign spending on state elections for judges, the Supreme Court explores how far the Constitution goes to set controls on judges who have taken hefty donations. The issue of when due process requires disqualification of such a judge is at the heart of the case ofCaperton, et al., v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., et al.

It will be interesting to see if the Court takes into account recent scholarship on state judicial elections and/or campaign funding. Speaking thereof, ahem, here’s the abstract for my 2008 APR article on judicial elections and public views toward courts, co-authored with Damon Cann (who has done more extensive work on this question):

In the years following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, the public’s support for the judicial system looms as an especially important concern. While studies have confirmed that the Supreme Court’s reservoir of public good will has remained largely intact following the politically divisive decision, the status of public support for other American courts has received little attention. This reflects a broader trend in judicial politics scholarship toward placing inordinate attention on explaining public support for the U.S. Supreme Court, while largely ignoring the courts where most of the policy-making in the nation occurs – state courts. We use 2001 survey data from a nationwide sample to assess the factors influencing diffuse citizen support for state courts. We find that many of the considerations affecting diffuse support for state courts parallel the determinants of such support for the nation’s high Court. However, we also find important differences between explanations of citizen support for state courts and the Supreme Court.

 


Great moments in presidential rhetoric – the Bush years

CFP: State Politics and Policy Conference

CFP: State Politics and Policy Conference, 5.22-23.09, Chapel Hill, NC

Continue reading

The financial crises and teenage employment

The New York Times has an interesting article and the cool graph above on teenage employment. The basic idea is that at times get tough, teenagers go to work. What would have been really interesting is to see some statistics on the type of job that teenagers have relative to their family’s socio-economic status. Not all teenager jobs are created equally.

Elite or Joe Six Pack? Who Has What

Given that there has been a lot of rhetoric in the presidential race on “being a regular guy (or woman),” Paul Caron’s post on the candidates’ released tax returns is informative.

Much has been made concerning the candidates’ relative charitable giving. Personally, I really don’t consider charitable giving to be a relevant consideration in choosing a president, but if we are going to go down this road, then it probably makes some sense to combine the incomes of candidates and their spouses in making these calculations.  As I recall from 2004 this can be a point of contention for wealthy candidate spouses and Mrs. Kerry only released a very limited version of her tax returns. I’m sure that this is what the McCains will end up doing if they haven’t already done it.  Suffice it to say, their combined income will dwarf Senator McCain’s and likely put his relative charitable giving in better perspective. For the Obamas the combining of incomes will probably prove fairly inconsequential. In the meantime, perhaps the chart below will provide some helpful information on the Elite/Joe Six Pack question regarding the candidates.

 

Is America a good financial bet?

Well, I’d like to think so. However, China apparently may have some reservations.

Chinese regulators have told domestic banks to stop interbank lending to U.S. financial institutions to prevent possible losses during the financial crisis, the South China Morning Post reported on Thursday.

(hat tip to concurring opinions blog)

I did like Campbell Brown’s concise take on the crises – an excerpt below the fold.

Continue reading

Barack Obama – “I’m never gonna give you up”

From the blog who once Rick rolled you (sorry) – we bring you the sweet sound and dance sensation that is Barack Obama! (hat tip to Gawker)

Congress! Congress! Congress!

Yes, there are not one, not two, but three papers on the Social Science Research Network on congress that I’d like to highlight. The papers, by Samuel Kernell, Ann Laquer Estin, and Matilde Bombardini & Francesco Trebbi,  are set forth below the fold along with their abstracts.

Continue reading

“Old Advertisements” added to “Old Polls” feature

I haven’t come up with any “Old Polls” in a while so I thought I’d make things a little easier on myself and add “Old Advertisements” to this feature. These ads tell us something about yesteryear and give context to our understanding of the events we experienced (or weren’t old enough to have experienced); plus, some are just funny. Here are a few below the fold to get us started – frankly, I don’t have much background on them, but they are amusing.

Continue reading

Obama the professor, redux

A while back we blogged on Obama’s time as a professor at the University of Chicago. The New York Times has a recent article that provides a more in depth take on his time as an academic. It even has some of his course materials and old tests!

Is partisanship inherited or learned? New research from the Twins Day Festival

Yes, the Twins Day Festival in … yes …. Twinsburg, Ohio. Political scientists Jamie Settle, Christopher Dawes, and James Fowler have posted “The Heritability of Partisan Attachment” on SSRN. This is a very interesting take on the old nature/nurture controversy regarding political behavior and employs data from identical and non-identical twins who attended the festival. The abstract is available below the fold.

Continue reading