<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Judicial Conservatism, Liberalism, Activism, Restraint, and Everything in Between</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/06/judicial-conservatism-liberalism-activism-restraint-and-everything-in-between.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/06/judicial-conservatism-liberalism-activism-restraint-and-everything-in-between.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:16:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/06/judicial-conservatism-liberalism-activism-restraint-and-everything-in-between.html/comment-page-1#comment-71861</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=30374#comment-71861</guid>
		<description>Thank you for this series.  I recently went to an ELS workshop, and I was a bit surprised by the emphasis there on using extant quantitative data, rather than developing one&#039;s own.  By contrast, Ian Shapiro has complained that, in some &quot;method-driven work . . . the construction of the problem is contaminated by the methods available to the researcher.&quot;
at http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8083.html


Shapiro also states that when &quot;esoteric forms of redescription are involved, they must elucidate the links to more familiar understandings of politics.&quot;  So I guess my question would be: is there a point at which a judge&#039;s activism or ideology score would make them unfit to serve, or would cause us to question the legitimacy of decisions they contributed to?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for this series.  I recently went to an ELS workshop, and I was a bit surprised by the emphasis there on using extant quantitative data, rather than developing one&#8217;s own.  By contrast, Ian Shapiro has complained that, in some &#8220;method-driven work . . . the construction of the problem is contaminated by the methods available to the researcher.&#8221;<br />
at <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8083.html" rel="nofollow">http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8083.html</a></p>
<p>Shapiro also states that when &#8220;esoteric forms of redescription are involved, they must elucidate the links to more familiar understandings of politics.&#8221;  So I guess my question would be: is there a point at which a judge&#8217;s activism or ideology score would make them unfit to serve, or would cause us to question the legitimacy of decisions they contributed to?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

