A Response to Tiller and Cross
In their Proposal, Professors Tiller and Cross identify what they see as the politicalization of federal appellate panels, based primarily on analysis of the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a solution, they propose assigning judges to federal...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Columbia law review 1999-01, Vol.99 (1), p.235-261 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 261 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 235 |
container_title | Columbia law review |
container_volume | 99 |
creator | Wald, Patricia M. |
description | In their Proposal, Professors Tiller and Cross identify what they see as the politicalization of federal appellate panels, based primarily on analysis of the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a solution, they propose assigning judges to federal appellate panels based on the political affiliation of their appointing President, rather than by random assignment. Judge Patricia M. Wald of the District of Columbia Circuit responds both to Tiller and Cross's assumptions and to their proposed solution, questioning the necessity and the efficacy of their solution. As to the alleged partisanship of the D. C. Circuit, Judge Wald's Essays question how often either the opportunity or the exercise of partisanship decisionmaking actually occur. As to Tiller and Cross's proposed solution of appointing judges based on their appointing President's political affiliations, Judge Wald questions the effectiveness as well as the constitutionality of the proposal and notes several incidental negative effects of such a solution. Her Essays conclude that the current party-blind system is far superior to one that labels judges by political party. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2307/1123601 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1474218129</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1123601</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1123601</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1279-c0ef7a1f5fd430106a1c9a9b695b857b291258410ef16cf34133de0a1f3f4aa53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1z8tKxDAUBuAsFBxH8Q0koOCqmpNLkyyH4g0GBBnXIU0TmFKbmnQWvr0ZOltXhwPfufwI3QB5pIzIJwDKagJnaEUIkAq0UBfoMueelF4oukK3G_zp8xTH7PEc8W4_DD5hO3a4STHnK3Qe7JD99amu0dfL8655q7Yfr-_NZls5oFJXjvggLQQROs7KpdqC01a3tRatErKlGqhQHAqD2gXGgbHOkzLBArdWsDW6W_ZOKf4cfJ5NHw9pLCcNcMkpKKC6qIdFueNvyQczpf23Tb8GiDkGNqfARd4vss9zTP-yP_nSUR0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1474218129</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Response to Tiller and Cross</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Wald, Patricia M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wald, Patricia M.</creatorcontrib><description>In their Proposal, Professors Tiller and Cross identify what they see as the politicalization of federal appellate panels, based primarily on analysis of the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a solution, they propose assigning judges to federal appellate panels based on the political affiliation of their appointing President, rather than by random assignment. Judge Patricia M. Wald of the District of Columbia Circuit responds both to Tiller and Cross's assumptions and to their proposed solution, questioning the necessity and the efficacy of their solution. As to the alleged partisanship of the D. C. Circuit, Judge Wald's Essays question how often either the opportunity or the exercise of partisanship decisionmaking actually occur. As to Tiller and Cross's proposed solution of appointing judges based on their appointing President's political affiliations, Judge Wald questions the effectiveness as well as the constitutionality of the proposal and notes several incidental negative effects of such a solution. Her Essays conclude that the current party-blind system is far superior to one that labels judges by political party.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-1958</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/1123601</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, N. Y: Columbia University School of Law</publisher><subject>Appellate courts ; Colloquy ; Environmental agencies ; Judges ; Judicial system ; Political parties ; Political partisanship ; Statutory interpretation ; Statutory law ; Tillers ; Voting</subject><ispartof>Columbia law review, 1999-01, Vol.99 (1), p.235-261</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1999 Directors of the Columbia Law Review Association, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1279-c0ef7a1f5fd430106a1c9a9b695b857b291258410ef16cf34133de0a1f3f4aa53</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1123601$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1123601$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27848,27903,27904,57995,58228</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wald, Patricia M.</creatorcontrib><title>A Response to Tiller and Cross</title><title>Columbia law review</title><description>In their Proposal, Professors Tiller and Cross identify what they see as the politicalization of federal appellate panels, based primarily on analysis of the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a solution, they propose assigning judges to federal appellate panels based on the political affiliation of their appointing President, rather than by random assignment. Judge Patricia M. Wald of the District of Columbia Circuit responds both to Tiller and Cross's assumptions and to their proposed solution, questioning the necessity and the efficacy of their solution. As to the alleged partisanship of the D. C. Circuit, Judge Wald's Essays question how often either the opportunity or the exercise of partisanship decisionmaking actually occur. As to Tiller and Cross's proposed solution of appointing judges based on their appointing President's political affiliations, Judge Wald questions the effectiveness as well as the constitutionality of the proposal and notes several incidental negative effects of such a solution. Her Essays conclude that the current party-blind system is far superior to one that labels judges by political party.</description><subject>Appellate courts</subject><subject>Colloquy</subject><subject>Environmental agencies</subject><subject>Judges</subject><subject>Judicial system</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Political partisanship</subject><subject>Statutory interpretation</subject><subject>Statutory law</subject><subject>Tillers</subject><subject>Voting</subject><issn>0010-1958</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp1z8tKxDAUBuAsFBxH8Q0koOCqmpNLkyyH4g0GBBnXIU0TmFKbmnQWvr0ZOltXhwPfufwI3QB5pIzIJwDKagJnaEUIkAq0UBfoMueelF4oukK3G_zp8xTH7PEc8W4_DD5hO3a4STHnK3Qe7JD99amu0dfL8655q7Yfr-_NZls5oFJXjvggLQQROs7KpdqC01a3tRatErKlGqhQHAqD2gXGgbHOkzLBArdWsDW6W_ZOKf4cfJ5NHw9pLCcNcMkpKKC6qIdFueNvyQczpf23Tb8GiDkGNqfARd4vss9zTP-yP_nSUR0</recordid><startdate>19990101</startdate><enddate>19990101</enddate><creator>Wald, Patricia M.</creator><general>Columbia University School of Law</general><general>Columbia University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>JHMDA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990101</creationdate><title>A Response to Tiller and Cross</title><author>Wald, Patricia M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1279-c0ef7a1f5fd430106a1c9a9b695b857b291258410ef16cf34133de0a1f3f4aa53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Appellate courts</topic><topic>Colloquy</topic><topic>Environmental agencies</topic><topic>Judges</topic><topic>Judicial system</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Political partisanship</topic><topic>Statutory interpretation</topic><topic>Statutory law</topic><topic>Tillers</topic><topic>Voting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wald, Patricia M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 31</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>Columbia law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wald, Patricia M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Response to Tiller and Cross</atitle><jtitle>Columbia law review</jtitle><date>1999-01-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>99</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>235</spage><epage>261</epage><pages>235-261</pages><issn>0010-1958</issn><abstract>In their Proposal, Professors Tiller and Cross identify what they see as the politicalization of federal appellate panels, based primarily on analysis of the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a solution, they propose assigning judges to federal appellate panels based on the political affiliation of their appointing President, rather than by random assignment. Judge Patricia M. Wald of the District of Columbia Circuit responds both to Tiller and Cross's assumptions and to their proposed solution, questioning the necessity and the efficacy of their solution. As to the alleged partisanship of the D. C. Circuit, Judge Wald's Essays question how often either the opportunity or the exercise of partisanship decisionmaking actually occur. As to Tiller and Cross's proposed solution of appointing judges based on their appointing President's political affiliations, Judge Wald questions the effectiveness as well as the constitutionality of the proposal and notes several incidental negative effects of such a solution. Her Essays conclude that the current party-blind system is far superior to one that labels judges by political party.</abstract><cop>New York, N. Y</cop><pub>Columbia University School of Law</pub><doi>10.2307/1123601</doi><tpages>27</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-1958 |
ispartof | Columbia law review, 1999-01, Vol.99 (1), p.235-261 |
issn | 0010-1958 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1474218129 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Periodicals Index Online |
subjects | Appellate courts Colloquy Environmental agencies Judges Judicial system Political parties Political partisanship Statutory interpretation Statutory law Tillers Voting |
title | A Response to Tiller and Cross |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T03%3A53%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Response%20to%20Tiller%20and%20Cross&rft.jtitle=Columbia%20law%20review&rft.au=Wald,%20Patricia%20M.&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=99&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=235&rft.epage=261&rft.pages=235-261&rft.issn=0010-1958&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/1123601&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1123601%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1474218129&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1123601&rfr_iscdi=true |