Money in Judicial Politics: Individual Contributions and Collective Decisions
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Money in Judicial Politics: Individual Contributions and Collective Decisions∗
We study how campaign contributions affect the voting strategies and effectiveness of justices in the Supreme Court of eight US states. A judge’s voting strategy leans more heavily towards an interest group the larger are its contributions to the judge, and the smaller are its contributions to other members of the court. This panel effect is consistent with an equilibrium response to contributi...
متن کاملJudicial Politics and Sentencing Decisions∗
Racial and gender disparities are prevalent in the criminal justice system, but the sources of these disparities remain largely unknown. This paper investigates whether judge political affiliation contributes to these disparities using data on over 500,000 federal defendants linked to sentencing judge. Exploiting random case assignment, we find that Republican appointed judges sentence black de...
متن کاملCoordination with Collective and Individual Decisions
The response to a large-scale disaster, e.g. an earthquake or a terrorist incident, urges for low-cost policies that coordinate sequential decisions of multiple agents. Decisions range from collective (common good) to individual (self-interested) perspectives, intuitively shaping a two-layer decision model. However, current decision theoretic models are either purely collective or purely indivi...
متن کاملThe Politics of Judicial Opposition
Existing studies of judicial decisionmaking have found that elected judges are more likely to dissent and to oppose judges from the same party. These findings are explained by elected judges having stronger preferences for risk or being more independent. In this paper, I offer an alternative explanation: judges’ efforts to be retained should yield different patterns of opposition among judges f...
متن کاملExtraneous factors in judicial decisions.
Are judicial rulings based solely on laws and facts? Legal formalism holds that judges apply legal reasons to the facts of a case in a rational, mechanical, and deliberative manner. In contrast, legal realists argue that the rational application of legal reasons does not sufficiently explain the decisions of judges and that psychological, political, and social factors influence judicial rulings...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: SSRN Electronic Journal
سال: 2012
ISSN: 1556-5068
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1998895