Today's NYT includes an op-ed commenting on an empirical piece, co-authored by Lori Ringhand (Kentucky--soon-to-be Georgia) along with our very own ELS blog editors Jason Czarnezki and William Ford, forthcoming in Constitutional Commentary. The authors report that:
"Our results indicate that confirmation hearings statements about a nominee's preferred interpretive methodologies provide very little information about future judicial behavior. Inquiries into specific issue areas - such as the rights of criminal defendants - may be slightly more informative."
Comments