Market forces determine media coverage of death penalty decisions by state high courts

What determines how death penalty cases are covered by the media? In new research, Richard L. Vining, Jr., Teena Wilhelm and Jack D. Collens argue that the press does not treat all cases equally, and that they are more likely to report on cases that will have broad appeal and increase their sales and profits. They find that a newspaper is nearly 60 percent more likely to cover a death penalty case decision if the offender is a woman and about 30 percent more likely if the sentence or conviction is overridden

If the next president wants to put an ideologue on the Supreme Court, they will have to sacrifice their initial domestic policy goals.

One of the first tasks for the new president this January – whoever they may be – could be to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. But how should the next president go about this? In new research, Anthony J. Madonna, James E. Monogan III, and Richard L. Vining, Jr. find that the more a president supports a particular Supreme Court nominee, the lower the chance that they can get a major new policy initiative through the Senate. If the new president wishes to focus on achieving their policy goals in their first 150 days, they argue, they should compromise by appointing a moderate to the Supreme Court, rather than an ideologue

Where One Sits Affects Where Others Stand: Bias, the Bar, and Nominees to Federal District Courts

The American Bar Association\u27s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary has evaluated potential federal judges since the 1950s. Here, we compare nominations to the circuit and district courts and find clear differences in how these two groups of nominees are evaluated the ABA. We propose these differences are a function of the lesser policymaking role and greater institutional constraints of district court judges, and the differences between trial and appellate court judges lead the ABA to favor different types of qualifications when evaluating nominees to these two types of courts

Bias and the Bar: Evaluating the ABA Ratings of Federal Judicial Nominees

The vetting of potential federal judges by the Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association (ABA) is politically controversial. Conservatives allege the Standing Committee is biased against Republican nominees. The ABA and its defenders argue the ABA rates nominees objectively based on their qualifications. The authors investigate whether accusations of liberal bias have merit. They analyze all individuals nominated to the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1977 to 2008. Using genetic matching methods and ordered logit models, the authors find evidence of bias against Republican nominees in the ABA’s ratings. They conclude by discussing the implications of these results. </jats:p

Where One Sits Affects Where Others Stand: Bias, the Bar, and Nominees to Federal District Courts

The American Bar Association\u27s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary has evaluated potential federal judges since the 1950s. Here, we compare nominations to the circuit and district courts and find clear differences in how these two groups of nominees are evaluated the ABA. We propose these differences are a function of the lesser policymaking role and greater institutional constraints of district court judges, and the differences between trial and appellate court judges lead the ABA to favor different types of qualifications when evaluating nominees to these two types of courts

Confirmation Wars, Legislative Time, and Collateral Damage: Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court Nominations on Presidential Success in the U.S. Senate

This page includes four datasets to replication duration models of presidential success on policy proposals and judicial nominations in the U.S. Senate. All four files contain monthly information about whether the nomination or proposal passed in the given month, along with several covariates. The two policy datasets are for "important" and "routine" legislative proposals from 1967-2010. The two nomination datasets are for circuit and district court nominees