Federal court confirmations in the United States have become openly
political affairs, with partisans lining up to support their
preferred candidates. Matters in the states are not much different,
with once sleepy judicial elections changing into ever more
contentious political slugfests, replete with single-issue interest
groups and negative campaign advertising. Once on the bench, judges
at every level find themselves dogged by charges of politically
motivated decision-making.
In this first-of-its-kind collection, prominent figures from the
academy, the bench, and the press reflect on the state of the
American judiciary. Using the results of a specially commissioned
public opinion poll as a starting point, the contributors examine
the complex mix of legal principle, political maneuvering, and
press coverage that swirl around judicial selection and judicial
decision making today. Essays examine the rise of explicitly
political state judicial elections, the merits of judicial
appointments, the rhetoric of federal judicial confirmation
hearings, the quality of legal reporting, the portrayal of courts
on the Internet, the inevitable tensions between judges and
journalists, and the importance of regulating judicial appearances.
Contributors Include: Keith J. Bybee, Charles Gardner Geyh, G. Alan
Tarr, Harold See, James E. Graves, Jr., John M. Walker, Jr., Joanne
F. Alper, Mark Obbie, Dahlia Lithwick, Tom Goldstein, and Anthony
Lewis
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
Welcome to Loot.co.za!
Sign in / Register |Wishlists & Gift Vouchers |Help | Advanced search
