Federal court confirmations in the United States have become openly political affairs, with parti... more Federal court confirmations in the United States have become openly political affairs, with partisans lining up to support their preferred candidates. Matters in the states are not much different, with once sleepy judicial elections changing into ever more contentious political slugfests, replete with single-issue interest groups and negative campaign advertising. Once on the bench, judges at every level find themselves dogged by charges of politically motivated decisionmaking. In Bench Press, a first-of-its-kind collection of essays, figures from the academy, the bench, and the press reflect on the state of the American judiciary. Using the results of a specially commissioned public opinion poll as a starting point, the contributors examine the complex mix of legal principle, political maneuvering, and press coverage that swirl around judicial selection and judicial decisionmaking today. Essays examine the rise of explicitly political state judicial elections; the merits of judicial appointments; the rhetoric of federal judicial confirmation hearings; the quality of legal reporting; the portrayal of courts on the Internet; the inevitable tensions between judges and journalists; and the importance of regulating judicial appearances. The Two Faces of Judicial Power is the introduction to Bench Press. It assesses popular conceptions of the courts and provides an overview of essays in the volume.
The eleven papers in this volume address a range of theoretical and empirical issues examined at ... more The eleven papers in this volume address a range of theoretical and empirical issues examined at the Onati workshop, "Law in the Age of Media Logic." Several papers explore the politicization of the media's reporting of the Courts and of judicial nominations, and consider how this reporting affects public support of the judiciary in different countries, including Israel, the United States, and Canada. Several other papers assess the "trials by media" that play out in the coverage of the criminal justice system. These papers consider a number of topics, including the criminalization of firearms litigation, the tension between a free press and fair trials, and the social media depictions of criminal justice. Finally, several papers analyze the judiciary's public relations strategies, and examine the various institutional changes that shape the public image of legal systems today.
What do we talk about when we talk about gender imbalance on the bench? The first thing we do is ... more What do we talk about when we talk about gender imbalance on the bench? The first thing we do is keep track of the number of female judges. Once the data has been gathered, we then argue about what the disparity between men and women in the judiciary means. These arguments about meaning are not freestanding. On the contrary, I claim that debates over gender imbalance occur within the context of a broader public debate over the nature of judicial decisionmaking. I argue that this public debate revolves around dueling conceptions of the judge as impartial arbiter and as politically motivated policymaker. These two conceptions provide the only current options for making sense of gender imbalance. Calls for gender equity do not fit easily with the conventional conception of impartial adjudication; as a result, arguments about the importance of increasing the number of female judges tend to be assimilated into the conventional conception of preference-driven policymaking. Thus, given thi...
Federal court confirmations in the United States have become openly political affairs, with parti... more Federal court confirmations in the United States have become openly political affairs, with partisans lining up to support their preferred candidates. Matters in the states are not much different, with once sleepy judicial elections changing into ever more contentious political slugfests, replete with single-issue interest groups and negative campaign advertising. Once on the bench, judges at every level find themselves dogged by charges of politically motivated decisionmaking. In Bench Press, a first-of-its-kind collection of essays, figures from the academy, the bench, and the press reflect on the state of the American judiciary. Using the results of a specially commissioned public opinion poll as a starting point, the contributors examine the complex mix of legal principle, political maneuvering, and press coverage that swirl around judicial selection and judicial decisionmaking today. Essays examine the rise of explicitly political state judicial elections; the merits of judicial appointments; the rhetoric of federal judicial confirmation hearings; the quality of legal reporting; the portrayal of courts on the Internet; the inevitable tensions between judges and journalists; and the importance of regulating judicial appearances. The Two Faces of Judicial Power is the introduction to Bench Press. It assesses popular conceptions of the courts and provides an overview of essays in the volume.
The eleven papers in this volume address a range of theoretical and empirical issues examined at ... more The eleven papers in this volume address a range of theoretical and empirical issues examined at the Onati workshop, "Law in the Age of Media Logic." Several papers explore the politicization of the media's reporting of the Courts and of judicial nominations, and consider how this reporting affects public support of the judiciary in different countries, including Israel, the United States, and Canada. Several other papers assess the "trials by media" that play out in the coverage of the criminal justice system. These papers consider a number of topics, including the criminalization of firearms litigation, the tension between a free press and fair trials, and the social media depictions of criminal justice. Finally, several papers analyze the judiciary's public relations strategies, and examine the various institutional changes that shape the public image of legal systems today.
What do we talk about when we talk about gender imbalance on the bench? The first thing we do is ... more What do we talk about when we talk about gender imbalance on the bench? The first thing we do is keep track of the number of female judges. Once the data has been gathered, we then argue about what the disparity between men and women in the judiciary means. These arguments about meaning are not freestanding. On the contrary, I claim that debates over gender imbalance occur within the context of a broader public debate over the nature of judicial decisionmaking. I argue that this public debate revolves around dueling conceptions of the judge as impartial arbiter and as politically motivated policymaker. These two conceptions provide the only current options for making sense of gender imbalance. Calls for gender equity do not fit easily with the conventional conception of impartial adjudication; as a result, arguments about the importance of increasing the number of female judges tend to be assimilated into the conventional conception of preference-driven policymaking. Thus, given thi...
Overview Is civility dead? Americans ask this question every election season, but their concern i... more Overview Is civility dead? Americans ask this question every election season, but their concern is hardly limited to political campaigns. Doubts about civility regularly arise in just about every aspect of American public life. Rudeness runs rampant. Our news media is saturated with aggressive bluster and vitriol. Our digital platforms teem with expressions of disrespect and trolls. Reflecting these conditions, surveys show that a significant majority of Americans believe we are living in an age of unusual anger and discord. Everywhere we look, there seems to be conflict and hostility, with shared respect and consideration nowhere to be found. In a country that encourages thick skins and speaking one's mind, is civility even possible, let alone desirable? In How Civility Works, Keith J. Bybee explores the " crisis " in civility, looking closely at how civility intertwines with our long history of boorish behavior and the ongoing quest for pleasant company. Bybee argues that the very features that make civility ineffective and undesirable also point to civility's power and appeal. Can we all get along? If we live by the contradictions on which civility depends, then yes, we can, and yes, we should.
Uploads
Papers by Keith Bybee