Reconsidering Judicial Preferences

Author:

Epstein Lee1,Knight Jack2

Affiliation:

1. Gould School of Law, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089;

2. Department of Political Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708;

Abstract

Among political scientists, not only is it uncontroversial to say that judges seek to etch their political values into law; it would be near heresy to suggest otherwise. And yet this article does just that because research conducted by scholars (mostly outside of political science) has demonstrated that the policy goal is not the only motivation; it may not even be dominant for many judges. The evidence is now so strong that it poses a serious challenge to the extremely (un)realist(ic) conception of judicial behavior that has dominated the study of law and legal institutions for generations. In addition to reviewing this evidence, we offer a more realistic conception of judicial motivations and suggest how different approaches to the study of courts can contribute to this new avenue of research.

Publisher

Annual Reviews

Subject

Sociology and Political Science

Cited by 92 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3