Comments on: When Judges Do NOT Polarize

By: Blar

Blar — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:16:07 +0000

I'm also curious about why abortion & capital punishment are different. Is it because judges' values on these two issues are more articulated and elaborated, so there is less ambiguity and less room for the group to influence the individual?

Thomas, Sunstein's findings do tell us anything about how the impact of group dynamics compares with the impact of individual judges' ideologies, just that group dynamics matter. Consider 4 cases: 1) O'Connor with 2 other Republican apointees, 2) O'Connor with 1 R apointee & one D, 3) Scalia with 2 R's, 4) Scalia with 1 R & 1 D. Sunstein's results show that the decision in 1 will be farther right than 2 (in most cases), and 3 farther right than 4, but it does not tell us anything about the comparison between 1 and 3 or between 2 and 4. My guess is that 3 & 4 are farther right than 1 & 2, it's just that Sunstein did not tell us about this comparison. The study Sunstein speaks of might not even be capable of making this comparison, since their only measure of the judge's ideology may be the party of the person who appointed them.

By: WB

WB — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:13:05 +0000

Prof. Sunstein,

W/r/t your observations in the original post, do you have any idea why this is? I read your article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, talking about the tendency of people to be less "moderate" when surrounded by a group of like-minded people, and found it very interesting....

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:09:27 +0000

billb--yes, of course. but Sunstein has never struck me as a one-issue kind of guy; he is, however, active in the Democratic attempts to justify the blocking of particular nominees.

By: billb

billb — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:05:36 +0000

Thomas: Except when it comes to the single-issue folks. Based on the above result, it's clear that if your issue is abortion or capital punishment, you had better agitate for the "right" appointee (or left, ahem).

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:57:16 +0000

why doesn't this suggest that efforts to block particular nominees is a misguided project? it appears that group dynamics overwhelm the individual judges' jursiprudential/ideological approaches. that is, at the court of appeals, there's not much difference between an O'Connor and a Scalia on a panel of 3 Republican appointees (and not much difference between, say, a Reinhardt and a Breyer on a panel with 3 Democratic appointees). the focus, it would seem, should be on making sure that there is balance between the parties over the long term--that is, on winning elections, not on blocking nominees.

what am I missing?