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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Columbia law review 1999-01, Vol.99 (1), p.235-261
1. Verfasser: Wald, Patricia M.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; 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