With its often vague legal concepts and institutions that operate according to unfamiliar procedures, judicial decision-making is, in many respects, a highly enigmatic process. New Directions in Judicial Politics seeks to demystify the courts, offering students the insights of empirical research to address questions that are of genuine interest to students.

In addition to presenting a set of conclusions about the way in which courts operate, this book also provides students with a sense of the craft of political research, illustrating how one can account for a variety of factors that might affect the courts and how they operate. New Directions in Judicial Politics invites critical thinking, not only about the original research presented by some of the most noted scholars in the field, but also about the validity and generalizability of material encountered in a study of judicial politics.

With its often vague legal concepts and institutions that operate according to unfamiliar procedures, judicial decision-making is, in many respects, a highly enigmatic process. New Directions in Judicial Politics seeks to demystify the courts, offering students the insights of empirical research to address questions that are of genuine interest to students.

In addition to presenting a set of conclusions about the way in which courts operate, this book also provides students with a sense of the craft of political research, illustrating how one can account for a variety of factors that might affect the courts and how they operate. New Directions in Judicial Politics invites critical thinking, not only about the original research presented by some of the most noted scholars in the field, but also about the validity and generalizability of material encountered in a study of judicial politics.

In recent years the Supreme Court has been at the center of such political issues as abortion rights, the administration of police procedures, and the determination of the 2000 presidential election. The checks and balances provided by the three branches of federal government are essential to nurturing and maintaining American democracy. With the guidance of coeditors Kermit L. Hall and Kevin T. McGuire, this volume of essays examines the role of the Judicial Branch in American democracy and the dynamic between the other branches of government, compares international models, and discusses possible measures for reform.
The Judicial Branch considers the impact of courts on American life and addresses such central questions as: Is the Supreme Court an institution of social justice? Is there a case for judicially created and protected social rights? Have the courts become sovereign when interpreting the Constitution?
Essays examine topics that include the judiciary in the founding of the nation; turning points in the history of the American judicial system; the separation of powers between the other branches of government; how the Supreme Court resolves political conflicts through legal means; what Americans know about the judiciary and its functions; and whether the American scheme of courts is the best way to support democracy.

Who represents litigants in the Supreme Court of the United States? Kevin T. McGuire shows that the most sophisticated of them have the advantage of representation by an elite counsel made up of former clerks to the justices, alumni of the Office of the Solicitor General, partners in powerful Washington law firms, and public interest lawyers, all of whom serve as gatekeepers to the Court.

In this study, the first to characterize the bar of the Supreme Court as a whole, McGuire uses survey, archival, and interview data to explore the history and social structure of the community of Supreme Court specialists. In so doing, he assesses the strategic politics of Supreme Court practice, the ways in which dominant litigators can shape the Court's decisions, and what the existence of such an elite implies for judicial fairness.