2000Political Research QuarterlyRequires access

Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench: Clinton's District Court Appointees

Jennifer A. Segal

Open publisher page 94 citations

Abstract

President Clinton, like Carter before him, has made a concerted effort to appoint women and minorities to the federal bench in an effort to make the courts appear representative of American society. The question remains, does this symbolic representation translate into substantive or policy representation on the bench? This analysis is based on data colected about pairs of Clinton's district court appointees who are similar in a number of respects but different in their race or gender. The rulings by these pairs, made in cases involving a number of issues expected to preent racial and gender differences, were compared to determine whether Clinton's nontraditional district court judges provided substantive as well as symbolic representation. The results indicate that these judges do not provide policy representation to their respective groups, nor do they appear particularly liberal or activist, as many of Clinton's political oppnents have alleged.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

President Clinton, like Carter before him, has made a concerted effort to appoint women and minorities to the federal bench in an effort to make the courts appear representative of American society. The question remains, does this symbolic representation translate into substantive or policy representation on the bench? This analysis is based on data colected about pairs of Clinton's district court appointees who are similar in a number of respects but different in their race or gender. The rulings by these pairs, made in cases involving a number of issues expected to preent racial and gender differences, were compared to determine whether Clinton's nontraditional district court judges provided substantive as well as symbolic representation. The results indicate that these judges do not provide policy representation to their respective groups, nor do they appear particularly liberal or activist, as many of Clinton's political oppnents have alleged.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 94 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

President Clinton, like Carter before him, has made a concerted effort to appoint women and minorities to the federal bench in an effort to make the courts appear representative of American society. The question remains, does this symbolic representation translate into substantive or policy representation on the bench? This analysis is based on data colected about pairs of Clinton's district court appointees who are similar in a number of respects but different in their race or gender. The rulings by these pairs, made in cases involving a number of issues expected to preent racial and gender differences, were compared to determine whether Clinton's nontraditional district court judges provided substantive as well as symbolic representation. The results indicate that these judges do not provide policy representation to their respective groups, nor do they appear particularly liberal or activist, as many of Clinton's political oppnents have alleged.

Key concepts: Representation (politics), Political science, Law, Politics, Race (biology), Federal court, Public administration, Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench: Clinton's District Court Appointees — Research Paper | ScholarLens