In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

NOTES Introduction 1. We explore this in more detail in the final chapter. 2. There continue to be robust debates in the academic literature over the usage of the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” to describe individuals of Spanish origin or descent. Here, we follow the practices of the U.S. Census Bureau and the Pew Hispanic Center and use the terms interchangeably. These disagreements also extend to whether “ethnicity” or “race” is the appropriate label to use when describing Latino populations. For instance, the Chicano movement in the 1960s made a concerted effort to use the term “race” in order to parallel the struggle of Latinos more closely with that of African Americans, rather than with other European immigrant groups (Darder and Torres 1998, 9). Chapter 1 examines in more depth some of the challenges associated with conceiving of a collective Latino identity. 3. In our analysis of individual decision making that uses data from the MultiUser Database, we do not include district court judges who are sitting by designation or federal judges who do not sit on a circuit court (for example, International Trade). We do include information on these judges when constructing panel-level measures, including the ideological predisposition of the panel. 4. Epstein et al. make these data available at a web site associated with the publication of The Behavior of Federal Judges: http://epstein.wustl.edu/research /behaviorJudges/index.php. 5. Our data also include corrections to the original database and update that focused on erroneously identified judges. In our update for 2003–8, we minimized this source of error by using automated content analysis for approximately one-third of the variables and online coding (with drop-down 166 NOTES TO PAGES 9–16 menus, including a list of federal judges from the Federal Judicial Center dataset from which a coder could select). 6. To promote comparability across circuits, our individual level analyses begin in 1982. As noted earlier, until 1980, the end of the Carter administration, minority and women judges on the appeals courts were virtually nonexistent . Additionally, the Fifth Circuit was split in 1981 to create the new Eleventh Circuit. 7. Following the conventions established by Songer (1997), we do not include unpublished decisions in our observation set and acknowledge the limitations of excluding them. In future research, we hope to investigate whether diversity is related to publication decisions and evaluate whether these dynamics hold in those cases where the opinion was not published. We also follow the conventions established by Songer (1997) in which votes are coded in terms of the policy content along a liberal-conservative dimension. For example, a vote supporting the position of a litigant claiming a civil rights violation is coded as “liberal” whereas a vote against that position is coded as “conservative.” In criminal cases, a vote supporting the position of the defendant (or prisoner) is coded “liberal” whereas a vote against is coded “conservative.” In labor-economics cases, liberal votes include those in which judges supported the positions taken by unions, the federal government in regulatory and tax cases, and individual plaintiffs in tort cases. Conservative votes include those in which judges supported the positions taken by management (against unions), opposed those taken by the federal government in regulatory and tax cases, and supported corporate defendants in tort and insurance cases filed by individuals. 8. Epstein provides updated data through 2010 at http://epstein.wustl.edu /research/JCS.html. 9. For an excellent discussion on logit models and how they may be used in studies of judicial decision making, see the appendix in Hettinger, Lindquist, and Martinek (2006). 10. Distributive politics cases were identified as appeals where individuals and businesses are pitted against one another in a private civil law case. 11. Our analysis of issue coverage in the majority opinion is limited to a shorter time period (1997–2002) due to the availability of data. Moreover, our observations are limited to majority opinions that did not include a non–appeals court judge sitting by designation because existing research finds district court judges are more susceptible to influence by their colleagues on the panel and less likely to author the majority opinion (Collins and Martinek 2011). ONE Race, Ethnicity, and Judging 1. The source for these figures is the Pew Hispanic Center National Survey of Latinos 2008 conducted as part of Pew’s Social and Demographic Trends Project’s Racial Attitudes in America Survey, which sampled 3,086 adults NOTES TO PAGES 18–31 167 between September...

pdf

Additional Information

ISBN
9780813937199
Related ISBN
9780813937182
MARC Record
OCLC
906026333
Pages
240
Launched on MUSE
2015-04-03
Language
English
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.