Judging on a Collegial Court

by Hettinger, Virginia A.; Lindquist, Stefanie A.; Martinek, Wendy L.

• ISBN13: 9780813925189
• ISBN10: 0813925185
• Format: Hardcover
• Copyright: 2006-03-13
• Publisher: Univ of Virginia Pr

Summary

Dissensus is often viewed in the professional world as a starting point for collaboration; rather than leaving decisions to just one person, dissent offers the opportunity to rethink or reinvent an idea, leading, one hopes, to a better result. When dissensus occurs in a federal court, however, it raises the question of whether this difference of opinion maintains the integrity of the judiciary or undermines its legitimacy. In Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making, Virginia Hettinger, Stefanie Lindquist, and Wendy Martinek examine the dynamic that gives rise to such dissensus in federal appeals courts, revealing how the appellate process shapes the content and the consistency of the law.The authors examine horizontal dissensus in the minority of cases in which there are dissenting or concurring -- as opposed to unanimous -- opinions. Primarily investigating why judges on the appeals courts agree or disagree with one another regarding the outcomes of the cases before them, the authors also examine vertical dissensus and ask why judges affirm or reverse lower court judges whose cases are decided on appeal. Focusing on the behavioral aspects of disagreement within a panel and between the levels of the federal judicial hierarchy, the authors reveal the impact of individual attitudes or preferences on judicial decision-making, and hence on political divisions in the broader society.

Author Biography

Wendy L. Martinek is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Binghamton University, State University of New York. Stefanie A. Lindquist is Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University. Virginia A. Hettinger is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut.

Table of Contents

List of Tables	ix
Acknowledgments	xi
Introduction	1	(4)
Horizontal and Vertical Dissensus	5	(23)
Juan Ramirez-Lopez and the Power of Dissent	5	(4)
A Jamaica Vacation Gone Awry	9	(2)
The U.S. Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System	11	(5)
Dissensus, Consensus, and Judicial Policymaking	16	(1)
Horizontal Dissensus	17	(3)
Vertical Dissensus	20	(7)
Conclusion	27	(1)
Theoretical Perspectives on Decision Making in Appellate Courts	28	(19)
The Choice to Write a Separate Opinion	36	(5)
The Panel's Choice to Reverse	41	(4)
A Note about Data	45	(1)
Conclusion	45	(2)
Why Do Judges Write Separate Opinions?	47	(26)
Specifying a Model of Separate Opinion Authorship	48	(13)
Estimating a Model of Separate Opinion Authorship	61	(9)
Conclusion	70	(1)
Appendix	71	(2)
The Strategy of Dissent	73	(16)
Dissent as a Strategic Tool	75	(3)
Constructing a Strategic Model of Dissents on the U.S. Courts of Appeals	78	(3)
Estimating a Strategic Model of Dissents on the U.S. Courts of Appeals	81	(5)
Conclusion	86	(1)
Appendix	87	(2)
The Decision to Reverse	89	(20)
Theoretical Expectations Regarding the Panel Decision to Reverse	90	(7)
A Model of Reversing the Lower Court	97	(8)
Conclusion	105	(1)
Appendix	106	(3)
Conclusions	109	(14)
Judicial Dissensus, Judicial Discretion, and the Institutional Context	109	(1)
Horizontal Dissensus	110	(7)
Vertical Dissensus	117	(2)
Comparing Horizontal and Vertical Dissensus	119	(4)
Appendix: Data and Methods	123	(6)
Notes	129	(8)
Bibliography	137	(14)
Index	151