Comments on: Head Counting on the U.S. Courts of Appeals http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/head_counting_o.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: PoorForm http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/head_counting_o.html/comment-page-1#comment-45936 PoorForm Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:02:09 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/11/head-counting-on-the-us-courts-of-appeals.html#comment-45936 At least the NYT has the (weak) excuse that they're (presumably) not lawyers who should know better.... At least the NYT has the (weak) excuse that they’re (presumably) not lawyers who should know better….

]]> By: Paul Collins http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/head_counting_o.html/comment-page-1#comment-45935 Paul Collins Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:22:37 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/11/head-counting-on-the-us-courts-of-appeals.html#comment-45935 Calabresi’s discussion also misses the importance of senatorial courtesy in the appointment of courts of appeals judges. While this is most commonly associated with the federal district courts, the fact remains that home state senators who are members of the president’s party have a big influence on the appointment of courts of appeals judges too. The significance of senatorial courtesy has had a big impact on quantitative studies of courts of appeals decision making. Rather than simply use the political party of the president who appointed a courts of appeals judge as a proxy for that judge’s ideology, the gold standard has become the Giles, Hettinger, and Peppers scores, which account for the dynamics of the federal judicial selection process relating to senatorial courtesy. See: Giles, Micheal W., Virginia A. Hettinger, and Todd Peppers. 2001. “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research Quarterly 54(3): 623-641. Calabresi’s discussion also misses the importance of senatorial courtesy in the appointment of courts of appeals judges. While this is most commonly associated with the federal district courts, the fact remains that home state senators who are members of the president’s party have a big influence on the appointment of courts of appeals judges too.

The significance of senatorial courtesy has had a big impact on quantitative studies of courts of appeals decision making. Rather than simply use the political party of the president who appointed a courts of appeals judge as a proxy for that judge’s ideology, the gold standard has become the Giles, Hettinger, and Peppers scores, which account for the dynamics of the federal judicial selection process relating to senatorial courtesy.

See: Giles, Micheal W., Virginia A. Hettinger, and Todd Peppers. 2001. “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research Quarterly 54(3): 623-641.

]]>