Uncategorized

Strategic Account of Judicial Politic

ArchPundit December 6, 2002 No Comments

Below Kevin asks for on-line references to strategic accounts of judicial politics. I’d recommend starting with this review essay by Epstein and Knight. Their book is also a good starter.

From there I’d recommend hitting the literature starting with Eskridge’s ’91 paper in the bibliography.
"Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions," 101 Yale L.J. 331 (1991)

Caldiera, Wright and Zorn

Other selected articles that I don’t believe are freely available on the web include

1998. "Marshalling the Court: Bargaining and Accommodation on the United States Supreme Court." Spriggs, Maltzman and Wahlbeck American Journal of Political Science 42(January):294-315.

This is only a small sampling, but they are the best places to start.

Wow, screwed that one up

ArchPundit December 6, 2002 No Comments

Frank Watson of Greenville was elected to the Senate Minority Leader position. Watson has largely flown below my radar so I don’t have much analysis in terms of his personality or interests. He does appear to have more of an interest in policy which is a good thing in general–not that I want any of those policies.

Geographically, it might be an important shift. As DuPage County grew, it took over the state Republican Party apparatus from downstate communities and suburban Cook. Suburban Cook has now gone Democratic, and DuPage isn’t as solid as it once was. With Cross an exurban legislator and Watson a true downstater, we may see an increase in urban rural tensions. This would not bode well for the Republicans because rural issues such as concealed carry and concern over suspect classification based on sexual orientation do not play well overall. Given Cross has strong Chicagoland ties, that might be overstating the immediate impact, but if the divide in Illinois moves more and more towards an urban/rural split, the Republicans will lose in an increasingly urban/suburban state.

Much to the chagrin of many in outstate, the county Republican Party operations have largely been hijacked by the Christian Right. If Watson is a continuation of this, the Illinois Republican Party may actually be in more trouble than even I thought in the long term.

What Google turns up

ArchPundit December 5, 2002 No Comments

Apparently Dust in the Light feels he is in need of an apology for my comments regarding his pot kettle issues over finding a white guy. Ummmm..actually, the strategy he kept pushing (searching for Arab/Muslim terrorists) would have been just as ineffective as searching for a white guy. Hence, he had pot-kettle issues. Unless he is still trying to sell the stale idea that these two clowns were terrorists?

Let Me Recommend

ArchPundit December 5, 2002 No Comments

A series,The Chicago Crime, by the Chicago Tribune. In a series of indepth editorials, the Chicago Tribune addresses homicide in Chicago, why it is so high, what can be done about it, and how it should be addressed. I’m a little surprised Talk Left hasn’t covered it. I’ll have more comments on it later, but I thought it was important to point out.

Pate backs Fitzgerald

ArchPundit December 5, 2002 No Comments

Pate takes a shot at LaHood and back Fitzgerald.

One of the more interesting issues will be who replaces Philip. It appears the main race is between Rauschenberger and Dillard. Dillard is a DuPage County Senator and Rauschenberger is western-Cook/Lake County (I haven’t seen the most recent boundary). Both are socially conservative and well respected by the wingnuts so regardless of who wins the race, there won’t be the bitter feelings that the Cross election created.

Rauschenberger is a serious guy and a budget expert. Dillard is more of the Philip kind of guy. Fiscally conservative with other people’s districts and fiscally liberal in DuPage. To add a little bit of intrigue, Rauschenberger is one of the few guys who gets along with the moderates and the wingnuts. The Illinois Leader likes him and Hastert used him to funnel cash to Illinois Senate races this fall. Additionally, he is probably the only person who can call himself a close ally of Fitzgerald. They were close in the lege.

My sense at this point is that if Philip has anything left, he’ll pass on his sceptre to Dillard in order to maintain DuPage’s influence. Nearly all of the caucus owes Philip so Dillard is the frontrunner. Given his ability to reach across the party and his detailed understanding of the state budget, Rauschenberger would be a better strategic choice in the coming budget battles.

Philip is out

ArchPundit December 5, 2002 No Comments

The longest serving legislative leader of the Illinois Lege is stepping down.

On the one hand, he won’t be missed. He is a back-slapping deal maker who thinks middle class American suburbanites are all that matter and has little real interest beyond pork for DuPage County. On the other hand, he said such spectacularly stupid things, it will be less fun having him around to quote.

While discussing problems in the Department of Family Services he once said a big part of the problem was that minority social workers don’t have the same work ethic as ‘you and I’. That Philip thought this was no surprise. That he said it was a surprise. Especially who he said it to: the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board. He was then surprised when it ended up on the front page. I believe he apologized at least.

More later on the race to replace him.

UP
DATE: ThePost-Dispatch has the quote. I missed the end

He once said of minorities: “It’s probably a terrible thing to say but I’ll say it — some of them do not have the work ethic we have.”

Why aren’t Lawyers taken seriously by social scientists?

ArchPundit December 3, 2002 No Comments

Reynolds has complained in the past that social scientists don’t take legal research seriously. This is true and not true. Social scientists take rigorous research seriously and the problem with some/much legal research is that it isn’t rigorous. William Eskridge is well respected by political scientists because his research is rigorous. Maybe Glenn should read it after posting this:

Or, if you’re one of those people who see the Court as a largely political animal, you might think that justices on the court who support other "right-wing" outcomes like ending affirmative action might think it useful to balance those by overturning Bowers. I don’t think the Court looks at cases that way, myself, but many people do and I suppose I could be wrong.

Why does Reynolds not address the evidence? There is a growing body of work on strategic behavior by justices. How is it wrong? Or is this a faith based claim by him? Or does he even understand the literature? The hypothesis is testable, has been tested, and has been confirmed by most tests to date. Most of the work criticizing strategic decision-making by courts takes a non-rigorous approach. So why does Reynolds think it is wrong?

One more for the night

ArchPundit December 3, 2002 No Comments

I just can’t help myself, but the Illinois Leader is full of stuff and I’ve been behind in linking to it. What is a liberal to the Illinois Leader? Tom Cross, Bill O’Conner, and Skip Saviano. There are legitimate issues to take with Saviano and his, ummm…, ties to interesting people. But that doesn’t make him liberal, it makes him….

But proteges of Denny Hastert aren’t liberal. I suppose if by liberal you mean, not nativist Eagle Forum fruitcakes, yes they are liberal. But not by any reasonable standard.

I Just Can’t Help Myself

ArchPundit December 3, 2002 No Comments

And I can’t make this crap up. Someone named their kid John Birch? Or is this fruitcake a descendant?

Before calling someone stupid

ArchPundit December 3, 2002 No Comments

Back from the edge of the wingnut One World Goverment/Religion portion of the Illinois Leader is Kevin McCollough. Kev decides to call the moderate/Combine Republicans stupid. Then he says:

At one point, Speaker Hastert was actually trying to wrestle the constitutional duty of naming the U.S. Attorneys away from Fitzgerald – a contest that the Senator easily won.

A No-Prize to the first person who can name that Constitutional provision. Preferably from the US Constitution, but another one might do.

Additionally, instead of finding something relevant to attack about Steve Neal, like his accuracy, Kev makes several allusions to his drinking habits. Calling a reporter a drunk is like calling a minister religious.

Finally, Good ‘ole Kev seems to not understand the 11th Commandment of Republican Politics–Thou Shall Not Speak Badly of Fellow Republicans. As a side note, I always wondered what Ford thought of this saying? More importantly, Pat O’Malley ran a wingnut campaign that villified J-Ry. J-Ry probably would have lost without that given the deck of cards he was dealt, but McCollough seems not understand that by shifting O’Malley to AG race, the bitter primary would have been avoided and all the money could have been spent attacking Lisa Madigan and the Dem nominee. Instead of wounding their better candidate, they could have had a competitive J-Ry and O’Malley. But no, stupid is as stupid does.