Non-Responsive! On Professor Lindgren's Reply to Saks and Vidmar

21 Pages Posted: 11 Feb 2003

See all articles by Michael J. Saks

Michael J. Saks

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

Neil Vidmar

Duke University - School of Law

Date Written: December 2002

Abstract

This paper responds to James Lindgren's defense of his research which purported to find that differences between ABA ratings of prospective judicial nominees were attributable to political bias. Saks & Vidmar explain (again) why Lindgren's conclusions are unsupported by the data. (For example, the data show that using Lindgren's own criteria, of those nominees with the weakest qualifications, 56% were proposed by the Bush compared to 29% from Clinton. Of those with the strongest qualifications, only 28% were Bush nominees compared to 42% Clinton nominees.) Moreover, Saks & Vidmar explain why, even if Lindgren's data did support his claim of bias, his proposed solutions misconceive the judicial "hiring" process.

Keywords: judicial selection, judicial nominees, ABA, social science, methodological flaws

Suggested Citation

Saks, Michael J. and Vidmar, Neil, Non-Responsive! On Professor Lindgren's Reply to Saks and Vidmar (December 2002). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=365680 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.365680

Michael J. Saks (Contact Author)

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law ( email )

111 E. Taylor Street
MC-9520
Phoenix, AZ 85004
United States

Neil Vidmar

Duke University - School of Law ( email )

210 Science Drive
Box 90362
Durham, NC 27708
United States
919-613-7090 (Phone)
919-613-7231 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
78
Abstract Views
1,273
Rank
559,655
PlumX Metrics