Michael P. Fix – författare

This timely Research Handbook offers a comprehensive examination of judicial politics, both in the US and across the globe. Taking a broad view of the judiciary in all levels of the court, it examines the present state of the field and raises new questions for future scholarly exploration.Expert authors critically analyse what the current literature tells us about important phenomena related to judicial politics, while simultaneously expanding the scope of that knowledge through original empirical research. Chapters cover the process of judicial decision-making in different types of courts, before discussing the electoral dimensions of judicial appointments, as well as vertical and horizontal constraints on judicial behaviour. They also address extrajudicial communications, public opinion and legitimacy, before concluding with an examination of methodological issues in judicial politics research.Accessibly written, the Research Handbook on Judicial Politics is a vital resource for graduate and undergraduate students of law, political science and public policy. It is also beneficial to practitioners in law and law related fields who are interested in gaining insight into the processes and structure of the judiciary.

This timely Research Handbook offers a comprehensive examination of judicial politics, both in the US and across the globe. Taking a broad view of the judiciary in all levels of the court, it examines the present state of the field and raises new questions for future scholarly exploration.

Expert authors critically analyse what the current literature tells us about important phenomena related to judicial politics, while simultaneously expanding the scope of that knowledge through original empirical research. Chapters cover the process of judicial decision-making in different types of courts, before discussing the electoral dimensions of judicial appointments, as well as vertical and horizontal constraints on judicial behaviour. They also address extrajudicial communications, public opinion and legitimacy, before concluding with an examination of methodological issues in judicial politics research.

Accessibly written, the Research Handbook on Judicial Politics is a vital resource for graduate and undergraduate students of law, political science and public policy. It is also beneficial to practitioners in law and law related fields who are interested in gaining insight into the processes and structure of the judiciary.

US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts challenges theoretical and empirical accounts about how state high courts use US Supreme Court doctrine and precedent. Michael Fix and Benjamin Kassow argue that theories that do not account for the full range of ways in which state high courts can act are, by definition, incomplete. Examining three important precedents - Atkins v. Virginia, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and DC v. Heller/McDonald v. Chicago - Fix and Kassow find that state high courts commonly ignore Supreme Court precedent for reasons of political ideology, path dependence, and fact patterns in cases that may be of varying similarity to those found in relevant US Supreme Court doctrine. This work, which provides an important addition to the scholarly literature on the impact of Supreme Court decisions, should be read by anyone interested in law and politics or traditional approaches to the study of legal decision-making.

US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts challenges theoretical and empirical accounts about how state high courts use US Supreme Court doctrine and precedent. Michael Fix and Benjamin Kassow argue that theories that do not account for the full range of ways in which state high courts can act are, by definition, incomplete. Examining three important precedents - Atkins v. Virginia, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and DC v. Heller/McDonald v. Chicago - Fix and Kassow find that state high courts commonly ignore Supreme Court precedent for reasons of political ideology, path dependence, and fact patterns in cases that may be of varying similarity to those found in relevant US Supreme Court doctrine. This work, which provides an important addition to the scholarly literature on the impact of Supreme Court decisions, should be read by anyone interested in law and politics or traditional approaches to the study of legal decision-making.

US Supreme Court Doctrine in the State High Courts challenges theoretical and empirical accounts about how state high courts use US Supreme Court doctrine and precedent. Michael Fix and Benjamin Kassow argue that theories that do not account for the full range of ways in which state high courts can act are, by definition, incomplete. Examining three important precedents – Atkins v. Virginia, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and DC v. Heller/McDonald v. Chicago – Fix and Kassow find that state high courts commonly ignore Supreme Court precedent for reasons of political ideology, path dependence, and fact patterns in cases that may be of varying similarity to those found in relevant US Supreme Court doctrine. This work, which provides an important addition to the scholarly literature on the impact of Supreme Court decisions, should be read by anyone interested in law and politics or traditional approaches to the study of legal decision-making.