Table of Contents Introduction 1. Asian States, International
Human Rights Law, and Minority Rights 2. Minority Rights in India 3. Minority Rights in China 4. Minority Rights in Malaysia 5. Minority Rights in Singapore 6. Conclusion
According to Amazon, the book was released on June 8th. Barnes & Noble’s website says it won’t be released until June 28th, which is probably correct. But I’m splitting the difference by posting it now.
Check out these endorsements from some of the ELS Blog’s favorite people:
“Not only is this a solid piece of research, it also does a
remarkable job of translating complex ideas-long floating around in the social
sciences-into prose accessible to a broad audience. This is an important
service. Plus, the book couldn't come at a better time. Senators (and
presidents), for the most part, understand the ideological component of judging
but the public seems to need a reminder. ARE JUDGES POLITICAL? provides just
that.” - Lee Epstein (Northwestern University)
“This is a significant book. The judiciary decides many
important policy questions in the United States, and in practice the
circuit court judiciary is much more important than the Supreme Court. This is
evident by the great and growing press and political attention to judicial
nominees. ARE JUDGES POLITICAL? greatly informs the debate, with its empirical
findings and its discussion of their pragmatic significance.” - Frank B. Cross (University of Texas-Austin)
“ARE JUDGES POLITICAL? is thoughtful and careful. It is a
terrific empirical introduction to the politics of judicial decisionmaking, an
area that is capturing the imagination of many in the legal academy. The
analysis of panel effects, which appear to be as large as partisan effects, is
especially interesting.” - Jeffrey A. Segal (Stony Brook University)
“Jeffrey Rosen makes a powerful and accessible case for a restrained
judicial role, one that will challenge liberal proponents of Warren
Court activism and conservative proponents of Rehnquist Court activism.
His work combines sound historical scholarship with important
prescriptions for contemporary constitutional politics.” -- Mark A.
Graber, University of Maryland
I don’t think we have highlighted the recent publication of Judging on
a Collegial Court: Influences on
Federal Appellate Decision Making by Virginia Hettinger,
Stefanie Lindquist, and Wendy Martinek (University of Virginia Press). I am happy to do so now.
An advanced graduate student (in political economy) I'm assisting requests suggestions for especially accessible texts (or, for that matter, articles) laying out the basics of survival analysis in general and the Cox hazard model in particular (including explanations of diagnostic issues), with an emphasis on data structure requirements. My initial suggestions, evidently, were not particularly helpful. Consequently, I (or, more accurately, we) welcome suggestions from others.
Adding to our discussion of useful statistical texts for students and new users, Alan Acock has written A Gentle Introduction to Stata, being sold as "an ideal book for students and for those with experience with other software packages but new to Stata."
The book The Supreme Court in the American Legal System (Segal/Spaeth/Benesh 2005) is reviewed by Richard Pacelle (Georgia Southern) in the recent Perspectives on Politics (Vol. 4, No. 1, Mar. 2006). While the short review recognizes that the book "is designed to be a less methodologically sophisticated analysis," the review questions the book's usefulness--"this will be a book in search of a market"--because Pacelle "suspect[s] instructors will opt for a more nuanced treatment of judicial decision making." Pacelle's hypothesis may be correct; but perhaps the book might also be filling a gap in the market. For example, to my knowledge, it is the only text on judicial process/behavior that includes a website with empirical data and commands (in SPSS) to let students replicate the analyses presented in the book.
It seems that judicial politics/judicial decision-making/American legal system/Supreme Court seminars involve professors and students with a wide range of methodological interest and expertise. While the ELS Blog discussed book selection in the classroom before, no suggestions were made about what judicial behavior books should be used for different types of courses with students and professors of varying interests and training, e.g., graduate versus undergraduate students; students with versus without statistical training. (A hierarchy was successfully created for statistical software.) I've seen Robert McCloskey's The American Supreme Court assigned for both undergraduate non-empirical courses and law school empirical seminars on the courts, with most graduate judicial politics seminars in law and the social sciences assigning The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited.
What is the hierarchy of foundational judicial decision-making texts in terms of methodological sophistication? Or, more specifically, what should one assign law students (or upper level undergraduates) with no previous statistics training in a judicial decision-making seminar?
This week, the ELS Blog presents its first Blog Forum, the
topic of which is law clerks as research subjects. This topic is particularly
timely. Two major studies of law clerks are scheduled for release this April, Todd
Peppers’ Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme
Court Law Clerk (Stanford) and Artemus Ward’s and David L. Weiden’s Sorcerers’
As Todd Peppers notes in his post, law clerks can be “tricky”
research subjects. Based on my experience on a survey project with Jason Czarnezki,
there are two major issues in working with former clerks. The first is
that many of them now work at law firms and are extraordinarily busy. I am not
sure that much can be done to deal with this issue. You can send multiple
requests (which we did do). You can call (which we did not do). But nothing can
make your survey billable.
Are there any recent or emerging methodological developments in the empirical legal studies field that deserve greater attention and discussion--either because they represent innovations that you consider to be important/worthwhile or, perhaps, because they represent moves that you consider to be problematic?
[For the record, inspiration for this post comes from a similar post crafted by Howard Gillman and circulated a few months ago on the Lawcourts listserv.]