Setting a judicial agenda: The decision to grant en banc review in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Journal of Politics

Volumn 68, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 852-866

  Giles, Micheal W ^a   Walker, Thomas G ^a   Zorn, Christopher ^b  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749563101     PISSN: 00223816     EISSN: 14682508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00475.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Banks, Christopher P. 1997. "the Politics of En Banc Review in The 'Mini-Supreme Court.' " Journal of Law and Politics 13 (Spring): 377-414.
2. Banks, Christopher P. 1999. Judicial Politics in the D.C. Circuit. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3. Barrow, Deborah J., and Thomas G. Walker. 1988. A Court Divided: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Politics of Judicial Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press.
4. Baum, Lawrence. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Bendor, Jonathan, and Terry M. Moe. 1986. "Agenda Control, Committee Capture and the Dynamics of Institutional Politics." American Political Science Review 80 (December): 1187-1207.
7. Bennett, Steven, and Christine Pembroke. 1986. "'Mini' En Banc Proceedings: A Survey of Circuit Practices." Cleveland State Law Review 34: 531-65.
8. Caldeira, Gregory A., and John R. Wright. 1988. "Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court." American Political Science Review 82 (December): 1109-27.
9. Caldeira, Gregory A., John R. Wright, and Christopher J. W. Zorn. 1999. "Strategic Voting and Gatekeeping in the Supreme Court." Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 15 (October): 549-72.
10. Cameron, Charles M., Jeffrey A. Segal, and Donald Songer. 2000. "Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions." American Political Science Review 94 (March): 101-16.
11. Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1995. "Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda." American Journal of Political Science 39 (February): 87-107.
12. Collier, David, and James Mahoney. 1996. "Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research." World Politics 49 (October): 56-91.
13. Cross, Frank B., and Emerson H. Tiller. 1998. "Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals." Yale Law Journal 107 (May): 2155-76.
14. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington: CQ Press.
15. George, Tracey E. 1998. "Developing a Positive Theory of Decisionmaking on U.S. Courts of Appeals." Ohio State Law Journal 58: 1635-96.
16. George, Tracey E. 1999. "The Dynamics and Determinants of the Decision to Grant En Banc." Washington Law Review 74 (April): 213-74.
17. Giles, Micheal W., Virginia A. Hettinger, and Todd Peppers. 2001. "Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas." Political Research Quarterly 54 (September): 623-41.
18. Ginsburg, Douglas H., and Donald Falk. 1991. "The Court En Banc: 1981-1990." George Washington Law Review 59 (June): 1008-91.
19. Hammond, Thomas H. 1986. "Agenda Control, Organizational Structure, and Bureaucratic Politics." American Journal of Political Science 30 (May): 379-420.
20. Heckman, James J. 1979. "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error." Econometrica 47 (January): 153-62.
21. King, Gary and Langche Zeng. 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data." Political Analysis 9 (Spring): 137-63.
22. Mouw, Calvin J., and Michael B. MacKuen. 1992. "The Strategic Agenda in Legislative Politics." American Political Science Review 86 (March): 87-105.
23. Note. 1989. "The Politics of En Banc Review." Harvard Law Review 102 (February): 864-84.
24. Oliphant, Robert E. 1991. "En Banc Polarization in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals." William Mitchell Law Review 17 (Summer): 701-51.
25. Perry, H. W. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Peterson, Steven, Stephen L. Wasby, James Schubert, and Glendon Schubert. 1992. "The Per Curiam Opinion: Its Nature and Functions." Judicature 76 (June-July): 29-38.
27. Poole, Keith T. 1998. "Recovering a Basic Space From a Set of Issue Scales." American Journal of Political Science 42 (July): 954-93.
28. Schwartz, Herman. 1988. Packing the Courts: The Conservative Campaign to Rewrite the Constitution. New York: Scribner.
29. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Solimine, Michael E. 1988. "Ideology and En Banc Review." North Carolina Law Review 67 (November): 29-76.
31. Songer, Donald R. 2002. United States Courts of Appeals Data Base, 1925-1996. http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/appctdata.htm (May 15, 2006).
32. Songer, Donald R., Charles M. Cameron, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 1995. "An Empirical Test of the Rational Actor Theory of Litigation." Journal of Politics 57 (November): 1119-29.
33. Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1984. "The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decision: Conflict as a Predictive Variable." American Political Science Review 78 (December): 901-11.
34. Wermiel, Stephen. 1988. "Full-Court Review of Panel Rulings Becomes Tool Often Used by Reagan Judges Aiming to Mold Law." Wall Street Journal (March 22): 70.
35. Wood, B. Dan, and Jeffrey S. Peake. 1998. "The Dynamics of Foreign Policy Agenda Setting." American Political Science Review 92 (March): 173-84.
36. Zarone, Phil. 2000. "Agenda Setting in the Courts of Appeals: The Effect of Ideology on En Banc Rehearings." The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 2 (Winter): 157-89.