Ronald Stidham

Judges' Policy Choices and the Value Basis of Judicial Appointments: A Comparison of Support for Criminal Defendants among Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy Appointees to the Federal District Courts

Using cases reported in the Federal Supplement, this study examines differences in support for criminal defendants among Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon appointees to the federal district courts. With controls for judicial era, region, and state, the research explores various legal and environmental constraints on presidential influences on the district judges. The findings lend support to value-based theories of judicial behavior, namely, that presidents do influence public policy through their judicial appointments. However, the results also reveal that the quantity and quality of presidential impact are shaped by numerous legal and extralegal factors, many of which are beyond the presidents control.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS BEFORE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1971-1977

This study analyzes opinions published by federal district judges in womens rights and racial minority discrimination cases in the period 1971-1977. Our analysis revealed that the petitioner in womens rights cases was only slightly more likely to be victorious than litigants from other disadvantaged groups. Using a regional variable, we found no significant differences between northern and southern judges deciding womens rights cases. However, the judges political party identification proved to be an important variable, and a meaningful split was found to exist between Democratic and Republican jurists in womens rights decisions.

Support for labor and economic regulation among Reagan and Carter appointees to the Federal Courts

Abstract Appointment of federal judges has become highly politicized over the past 25 years as presidents and political parties have become more intent on appointing judges who agree with their political ideology and perhaps even specific policy goals. This study of 3700 opinions assesses the extent to which Presidents Carter and Reagan succeeded in influencing the policy decisions of their appointees in labor and economic regulation cases. Analysis shows that Reagan judges are similar to judges appointed by other Republican presidents and that Carter judges are similar to judges appointed by other Democratic presidents.