Deciding Who Decides: Ideological Cohesion & Presidential Appointments

职务名称：博士论文研究：决定谁来决定：意识形态的凝聚力和总统的承诺PI：苏珊塔拉里科和托德柯林斯提案号：0648367摘要这个项目评估总统的能力，任命法官谁将支持与行政管理的政策目标相一致的立场，结合定量和定性分析。 作为对几届政府进行定量分析的一部分，该项目探讨了总统政策偏好的几种测量方法，作为主要的自变量。 根据政策实施和影响的总体框架构建，我假设被认为更加“自由”的总统将任命对案件结果自由投票的法官，而被认为更加“保守”的总统将任命支持保守案件结果的法官。 该项目审查了1960年至2001年的案件，以个别法官的案件表决作为因变量。 以吉米·卡特总统的任命为案例研究，对总统提名策略的考察将增强这一更大的统计分析。 本案例研究的前提是，总统在不同的司法提名中寻求不同的目标。 假设是，当总统为了促进政府的政策目标而选择某些法官时，这些法官在未来案件中做出的决定应该符合任命总统的目标。 然而，那些出于党派原因或为了奖励个人忠诚而被任命的人应该不太可能支持总统的长期政策偏好。 白宫内部备忘录和卡特总统图书馆的其他信息将被用于根据候选人支持某些政策偏好的可能性来确定哪些候选人被选中。 然后，我会查看这些法官的投票记录。 虽然其他作品已经审查了卡特政府的提名人，这个项目将允许更多地了解卡特总统的长期影响，巡回择优委员会，以及政府的提名目标如何影响未来的政策。 作为其更广泛影响的进一步部分，对卡特文件的分析具有重要的启发意义。 除了评估卡特政府的特殊性外，该项目还将创建一个模板，供其他研究人员借鉴。 审查卡特文件，将每个被提名人归类为党派、个人或基于政策的被提名人，然后审查这些被提名人的投票行为，可以在其他总统图书馆复制给其他政府。

Title: Doctoral Dissertation Research: Deciding Who Decides: Ideological Cohesion and Presidential AppointmentsPIs: Susan Talarico and Todd CollinsProposal Number: 0648367AbstractThis project evaluates the president's ability to appoint judges who will support positions consistent with the executive administration's policy goals, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses. As part of a quantitative analysis examining several administrations, this project explores several measurements of presidential policy preferences as the main independent variable. Constructed against general frameworks of policy implementation and impact, I hypothesize that presidents considered more "liberal" will appoint judges that vote liberally in case outcomes, while presidents considered more "conservative" will appoint judges that support conservative case outcomes. The project examines cases from 1960 to 2001, with the individual judges' case votes serving as the dependent variable. An examination of presidential nomination strategies will augment this larger statistical analysis, using the appointments of President Jimmy Carter as a case study. This case study builds upon the premise that presidents seek different goals across different judicial nominations. The hypothesis is that when presidents select certain judges in order to foster an administration's policy goals, then the decisions those judges make in future cases should be inline with the appointing president's goals. However, those appointees selected for partisan reasons or to reward individual loyalty should be less likely to support long-term presidential policy preferences. Internal White House memos and other information from the Carter Presidential Library will be used to determine which nominees were selected based on their likelihood to support certain policy preferences. Then, I will examine the voting records of those judges. While other works have examined the Carter Administration's nominees, this project will allow more insight into the long-term influence of President Carter, the circuit merit-selection committees, and how an administration's nomination goals may influence future policy. As a further part of its broader impact, this analysis of the Carter Papers carries important heuristic implications. Aside from assessing the particularities of the Carter administration, this project will create a template from which other researchers can build upon. Examining the Carter Papers and categorizing each nominee as either a partisan, personal, or policy-based nominee and then examining those nominees' voting behaviors could be duplicated for other administrations at other presidential libraries.