Courts are a bit of a contradiction. Judges claim to be non-partisan and non-ideological when they decide cases, and yet courts make policy in profoundly ideological and partisan ways. Those who are skeptical of judge’s claims to nonpartisanship accuse judges of being simply “politicians in robes.”

This week’s textbook chapter provides the layout and organization of the federal judicial system, and discusses the different ways judges approach cases. Whittington argues that we should take Courts seriously as agents of political change. Segal & Spaeth argue that despite their claims, judges are strongly influenced by political and policy preferences when deciding cases. Rowland and Carp present evidence that the judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans decide cases in profoundly different ways.

Questions to Consider:

• What roles do the law, legal precedents, and judges’ political attitudes each play in judicial decisions?
• How differently do federal judges appointed by Democratic and Republican judges behave on the bench?
• How and why are Courts important elements of the federal policy-making process?

Readings

Logic of American Politics, Chapter 9

Keith Whittington. 2007. Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy. Chapter 1

Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Chapter 2, pg. 86-97, Chapter 7 & pg. 312-326

C.K. Rowland and Robert A. Carp. Politics and Judgment in Federal District Courts. Chapter 2