Judging Judges: Values and the Rule of Law by Jason E. Whitehead

Author:Jason E. Whitehead [Whitehead, Jason E.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Law, Judicial Power, Political Science, General, Religion, Ethics
ISBN: 9781602585256
Google: C3nmngEACAAJ
Amazon: B00QFLUVHA
Barnesnoble: B00QFLUVHA
Goodreads: 37806460
Publisher: Baylor University Press
Published: 2014-01-15T10:29:06+00:00

Appendix A

METHODOLOGICAL SUMMARY

Subject Selection and Data-Gathering

I conducted informal, confidential interviews with twenty-four state and federal appellate judges in three different states (see appendix B for a description of my sample). To gain access, I used a three-pronged sampling strategy. First, I used my own contacts and those provided by friends and colleagues to generate a first wave of interviews. Second, based on referrals from those judges, I constructed a snowball sample of other judges. Third, I contacted several judges cold, telling them I had interviewed other judges on their court and asking them if they would also like to participate. I made my initial contact by e-mail. I e-mailed a total of forty-five judges, and I received positive e-mails back from twenty-seven judges (a response rate of 60%). Due to scheduling or logistical issues, three judges who responded positively were not interviewed.

The list of twenty-four interview subjects included: six federal circuit judges (25% of the sample) from three different states, four state Supreme Court Justices (16%) from two states, and fourteen state court of appeals judges (56%) from two states. There were seventeen Democratic appointees (68% of the sample) and seven Republican appointees (29%).

All the interviews took place in the judges’ chambers. They lasted between one hour and one and a half hours. Twenty-two of the judges permitted me to take an audio recording of the interview, which allowed me to later generate a formal written transcript. For the remaining three, I took detailed field notes, which I later turned into informal written transcripts. Substantively, the interviews consisted of informal, open-ended questions designed to generate dialogue about the judge’s attitudes toward law, followed up by probing questions. While every interview was different, I did use an interview guide (see appendix C) consisting of topics related to the judge’s background and experiences and to his or her orientation toward the judicial role, interaction with judicial and other institutions, and decision-making process.

Coding Procedures

I coded the transcripts and field notes in two distinct phases. In the first phase, I classified each answer according to the three components of the social practice model—that is, whether it seemed to relate to the legal-judicial “community,” “language” practices, or judicial “virtues.” In the second phase, I classified the responses within each of the above three groups according to the specific value illustrated—that is, whether they seemed to indicate formalist values, good-faith values, cynical values, or rogue values.

The unit of analysis was the answer given by the subject, regardless of what question was asked. In other words, even in cases where it appears the subject is addressing a topic other than that raised by the question, the answer was coded as a stand-alone statement. An answer may comprise several statements, even if the statements are separated by a minor question or a follow-up that does not alter the general train of thought.

Phase One: Social Practice Component

Code “C” (for community) if the answer relates to any of the following:

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.