IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v60y2016i1p30-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Courting the President: How Circuit Court Judges Alter Their Behavior for Promotion to the Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan C. Black
  • Ryan J. Owens

Abstract

We examine whether circuit court judges sacrifice policy purity for career goals. We compare the behavior of contender judges–those most likely to be elevated to the Supreme Court–during vacancy periods with their behavior outside vacancy periods. We also examine the behavior of noncontender judges during those same times. The data show that during vacancy periods, contender judges are more likely to vote consistently with the president's preferences, to rule in favor of the United States, and to write dissenting opinions. Noncontender judges fail to evidence such behavior. These findings provide empirical support for the argument that federal judges adapt their behavior to specific audiences, and provide new avenues for research into judges' goals and the role of audiences in judicial decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan C. Black & Ryan J. Owens, 2016. "Courting the President: How Circuit Court Judges Alter Their Behavior for Promotion to the Supreme Court," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(1), pages 30-43, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:60:y:2016:i:1:p:30-43
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12132
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12132?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bai, Min & Shen, Luxi & Li, Yue & Yu, Chia-Feng (Jeffrey), 2024. "Does legal justice promote stakeholder justice? Evidence from a judicial reform in China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:60:y:2016:i:1:p:30-43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.