Convention Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~mpsa/
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p363529_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Vining, Richard., Steigerwalt, Amy. and Smelcer, Susan. "Bias and the Bar: Evaluating the ABA Ratings of the Bush Judicial Nominees" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, Apr 02, 2009 <Not Available>. 2009-11-10 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p363529_index.html>

Vining, R. L., Steigerwalt, A. L. and Smelcer, S. N. , 2009-04-02 "Bias and the Bar: Evaluating the ABA Ratings of the Bush Judicial Nominees" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-11-10 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p363529_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: In one of his earliest actions as president, George W. Bush removed the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary from its role in the recruitment and vetting of federal judges. The Committee was accused of unfairness toward conservative nominees motivated by a preference for liberal jurists. With the Bush years drawing to a close, we examine the ABA’s ratings (‘well qualified,’ ‘qualified,’ or ‘not qualified’) of the Bush nominees to the lower federal courts and their earlier counterparts from 1977-2008 to evaluate this claim. We examine, in light of Bush’s comments and other studies identifying bias in ABA ratings (e.g., Lindgren 2001), whether that holds true. We construct an ordered logit model to explain the roles of experience, career path, education, race/gender, and political affiliation in ABA evaluations of judicial nominees. In addition, we discuss whether the ABA has responded to criticism in recent ratings and whether it should be returned to its former role in the president’s evaluation of prospective judicial nominees.

The Effects of Party Polarization on Judicial Nominations to the Federal Court of Appeals

Federal Court Nominations, the Role of Ideology, and the Threat of Filibuster

Agenda Setting in Federal District Courts: The Effect of Judge Sex and Ideology

Constrain or replace? A model of the interaction between ex ante limits on discretion and ex post evaluation with an application to oversight of trial court judges

Applying Attitudinal Models to Federal Courts of Appeals: Appellate Review of Trial Judges' Decisions to Admit Scientific Expert Testimony