"Making the Supreme Court: The Politics of Appointments 1930--2020 tells the story of 90 years of Supreme Court appointments. It examines what happened, why it happened, the consequences for the Supreme Court, the future of appointments, and the prospects for reform. Based on massive data combined with rich qualitative evidence, Making the Supreme Court employs new theories, cutting-edge technique, and a novel perspective on political institutions. Finally, it provides a sharp lens on the social and political transformations that created a new American politics. It will appeal not only to students of the Supreme Court but to anyone concerned with the origins and future of American politics"--

Through six accessible essays, the author invites students of the law to look beyond accepted American legal practices. One learns why appellate courts always have an odd number of judges, why the power of judges depends partly on accurate court reporting and unitary, "opinions of the court," how common law rules can be unconstitutional, and many other pressing legal issues.

What influences decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court? For decades social scientists focused on the ideology of individual justices. Supreme Court Decision Making moves beyond this focus by exploring how justices are influenced by the distinctive features of courts as institutions and their place in the political system. Drawing on interpretive-historical institutionalism as well as rational choice theory, a group of leading scholars consider such factors as the influence of jurisprudence, the unique characteristics of supreme courts, the dynamics of coalition building, and the effects of social movements. The volume's distinguished contributors and broad range make it essential reading for those interested either in the Supreme Court or the nature of institutional politics. Original essays contributed by Lawrence Baum, Paul Brace, Elizabeth Bussiere, Cornell Clayton, Sue Davis, Charles Epp, Lee Epstein, Howard Gillman, Melinda Gann Hall, Ronald Kahn, Jack Knight, Forrest Maltzman, David O'Brien, Jeffrey Segal, Charles Sheldon, James Spriggs II, and Paul Wahlbeck.

This book illuminates the decision-making processes of the US Supreme court through an examination of several prisoners' rights cases. In 1964, the Supreme Court declined to hear prisoners’ claims about religious freedom. In 2014, the Supreme Court heard a case that led to the justices’ unanimous endorsement of a Muslim prisoner’s religious right to grow a beard despite objections from prison officials. In the fifty-year span between those two events, the Supreme Court developed the law concerning rights for imprisoned offenders. As demonstrated in this book, the factors that shape Supreme Court decision making are well-illustrated by prisoners’ rights cases. This area of law illuminates competing approaches to constitutional interpretation, behind-the-scenes interactions among the justices, and the manipulation of legal precedents. External actors also affect the Supreme Court and its decisions when the president appoints new justices and Congress targets the judiciary with legislative enactments. Because of the controversial nature of prisoners’ rights issues, these cases serve to illuminate the full array of influences over Supreme Court decision making.

William R. Casto sheds a new light on America's federal judiciary and the changing legal landscape with his detailed examination of the Supreme Court's formative years. In a study that spans the period from the Court's tentative beginnings through the appointment of its third chief justice, Casto reveals a judicial body quite different in orientation and philosophy from the current Supreme Court and one with a legacy of enduring significance for the U.S. legal system. Casto portrays the founding of the Supreme Court as a conscious effort to help the newly established government deal more effectively with national security and foreign policy concerns, and he credits the Court with assisting the Washington and Adams administrations establish stable relationships with Great Britain and France. The initial debate over the Supreme Court's jurisdiction as well as over the method of selecting its justices is recalled here. Casto also reveals the philosophical mindset of the first Supreme Court, contrasting the eighteenth-century concept of natural law with the legal positivism on which the Supreme Court now relies. Using this historical context, he addresses the political controversy over federal common-law crimes, the drafting of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the adoption of judicial review.

Known for shedding light on the link between the courts, public policy, and the political environment, the new ninth edition of Judicial Process in America provides a comprehensive overview of the American judiciary. Considering the courts from every level, the authors thoroughly cover judges, lawyers, litigants, and the variables at play in judicial decision making. This remarkably current revision will only solidify the bookÆs position as the standard-bearer in the field.

One of the more enduring topics of concern for empirically-oriented scholars of law and courts—and political scientists more generally—is how research can be more directly relevant to broader audiences outside of academia. A significant part of this issue goes back to a seeming disconnect between empirical and normative scholars of law and courts that has increased in recent years. Brandon L. Bartels and Chris W. Bonneau argue that being attuned to the normative implications of one’s work enhances the quality of empirical work, not to mention makes it substantially more interesting to both academics and non-academic practitioners. Their book’s mission is to examine how the normative implications of empirical work in law and courts can be more visible and relevant to audiences beyond academia. Written by scholars of political science, law, and sociology, the chapters in the volume offer ideas on a methodology for communicating normative implications in a balanced, nuanced, and modest manner. The contributors argue that if empirical work is strongly suggestive of certain policy or institutional changes, scholars should make those implications known so that information can be diffused. The volume consists of four sections that respectively address the general enterprise of developing normative implications of empirical research, law and decisionmaking, judicial selection, and courts in the broader political and societal context. This volume represents the start of a conversation on the topic of how the normative implications of empirical research in law and courts can be made more visible. This book will primarily interest scholars of law and courts, as well as students of judicial politics. Other subfields of political science engaging in empirical research will also find the suggestions made in the book relevant.

Known for shedding light on the link between the courts, public policy, and the political environment, Judicial Process in America offers students a clear but comprehensive overview of today’s American judiciary. Considering the courts from every level, the authors thoroughly cover judges, lawyers, litigants, and the variables at play in judicial decision-making. The highly anticipated Eleventh Edition offers updated coverage of recent Supreme Court rulings, including same-sex marriage and health care subsidies; the effect of three women justices on the Court′s patterns of decision; and the policy-making role of state tribunals as they consider an increasing number of state programs and policies. New to this Edition Discussions of recent judicial appointments take a critical look at how President Trump’s victory has set the stage for moving the ideological direction of the Supreme Court and of the lower federal judiciary in a distinctly more conservative direction. An analysis of recent controversial Supreme Court decisions help students to identify with the content by exploring issues such as, citizenship rights for immigrants, gay and lesbian rights, and freedom of speech and religion. Additional tables and graphs illustrate the patterns and trends that are occurring in today’s judicial process. New coverage of current topics help students see how the judicial process is applied. These topics include: the legality of Congress’ feeble attempts to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act that affects millions of people; how to address the issues of immigration and deportations, including what to do about so-called Dreamers (children brought illegally to the United States by their parents without the children’s knowledge and who have spent much or all of their lives here); the status of abortion rights in America as more and more conservative states have sought to further restrict a woman’s right to such a procedure; the legal status of transgender persons in the armed forces; the degree to which severely gerrymandered legislative districts pass constitutional muster; and the great changes in the issue of same-sex marriage, both among average Americans and within the state and federal court systems (including all the ancillary issues such as whether same-sex couples can adopt children and obtain government fringe benefits).