Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Ideology and political
maneuvers cloud even the smallest amount of controversy in the
confirmation of judicial appointments in the Senate Judiciary
Committee. Aside from the rare impeachment of a judge, the Judiciary
Committee is the one venue that provides a valuable one-time in-depth
check on the quality of lifetime appointments to the judiciary. This
small window for a check on the vast power of the judiciary requires
continual quantitative analysis to determine the status of the
underlying criteria within the Senate Judiciary Committee. This project
is aimed at putting forth a model that attempts explanation of varying
criteria across congresses, appointees, and Senators on the Judiciary
Committee. This study focuses on criteria in the 105th, 106th, and
107th Congresses extending the analysis proposed and applied by
Guliuzza (1994). Guliuzza’s confirmation criteria are measured through
the content analysis of questions asked by Senators on the Judiciary
Committee to nominees to the Supreme Court. This paper applies the same
schema to Circuit Court nominees. Questions are coded into three
categories. Questions of character, competency, and constitutionalism
are used to determine the criteria for confirmation used by the
committee. The breakdown of these categories is then used in a
multinomial logit to discern if there are effects from the issue
positions of Senators, their support of the president’s legislative
agenda, and the record of the circuit court to which the nomination is
being made. This analysis shows to what extent ideology and political
calculations affect the criteria the committee uses to send nominations
to the Senate floor for full consideration. The Senate Judiciary
Committee becomes an opportunity to frame the debate before the entire
Senate begins to address the issue. This analysis does not address
specific nominations and the arguments for or against nomination.
Instead, this paper looks at how the political and legal landscape
affects the criteria Senators use to advise and consent on Circuit
Court nominees.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: To add to our limited knowledge of courts of appeals' dispositions, this paper provides examination of court of appeals publication practices through analysis of the court's formal criteria and other inferred criteria or norms affecting publication. The former include publishing matters of first impression in the circuit or dispositions with dissenting or concurring opinions, and the latter, publishing rulings reversing a district court or administrative agency. We look at each guideline or norm in turn to evaluate their "match" with specific memorandum dispositions, and whether the court follows or departs from those criteria and norms. Examples are drawn primarily from the thirty years of use of unpublished dispositions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The examination allows us to say tentatively that many, perhaps most, unpublished dispositions fit the citeria or can be explained by inferred norms regularly used.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: On grounds of inclusion of undesirable votes (type I errors) and exclusion of desirable votes (type II errors), we question the convention of selecting only final-passage votes for roll call analysis. We propose an alternative selection method based on the estimated salience and strategic significance of roll calls and argue that this method reduces type I and type II errors. We demonstrate that selection of roll calls based on alternative criteria has a major bearing on the asymmetry of partisan roll rates and, we conjecture that its application will also be substantively significant in other modes of inquiry.

Supporting Publications:
Supporting Document

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In his study focusing on American foreign policy doctrines, Cecil V. Crabb notes that there are three essential components to these policy pronouncements: a basis in international law, the inclusion of religious and metaphysical imagery and elements, as well as an appeal to specific ideals that are representative of the United States. This study seeks to extend Crabb's framework to the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, often referred to as the Bush Doctrine. Specifically, this paper explores the extent to which elements stemming from Crabb's three criteria are evident in the Bush Doctrine. Additionally, this analysis will examine the implications pertaining to international law, the concepts of pre-emption and self-defense, as well as just-war theory, that arise out of the framework presented in the Bush Doctrine. The use of Crabb's framework will allow for an examination of the extent to which the Bush Doctrine either mirrors previous presidential doctrines or, perhaps, indicates a marked change in the direction and nature of American foreign policy.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Taking the international system as given, realists privilege actions taken by states on their own behalf. In doing so, most realists imply (or even assert) claims regarding the state's moral obligation to ensure its own preservation by whatever means necessary. The reasoning that underpins such claims is tantamount to moral skepticism because there lacks a coherent framework for assessing the morality of state action within the international system. Augustine, however, provides such a framework, consisting of interrelated decision-making principles that acknowledge the tradeoffs between the state's obligations to its citizens and its obligations to individuals outside of it. Understanding these principles, which are the foundation of Augustine's just war criteria, extends the applicability of Augustine's thinking beyond questions or war and peace to other realms of international interaction, providing citizens a means by which to assess the morality of the foreign policy pursued by political leaders.