Ready for Their Close-Up? Ideological Cues and Strategic Televising in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

References

• Bartels, Brandon L., and Christopher Johnston. 2010. “Sensationalism and Sobriety: Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes toward American Courts.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (2):260–85. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp096.
   Google Scholar
• Beim, Deborah, Alexander V. Hirsch, and Jonathan P. Kastellec. 2016. “Signaling and Counter Signaling in the Judicial Hierarchy: An Empirical Analysis of En Banc Review.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (2):490–508. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benesh, Sara C. 2006. “The Contribution of Extra Judges.” Arizona Law Review 48 (2):301–15.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, Stuart Minor, and Georg Vanberg. 2016. “Judicial Retirements and the Staying Power of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 13 (1):5–26. doi: 10.1111/jels.12095.
   Google Scholar
• Bohmelt, Tobias, and Gabriele Spilker. 2020. “Selection Bias in Political Science and International Relations Applications.” In The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations, ed. Luigi Curini and Robert Franzese. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Bolton, Joseph P, and Christopher D. Kromphardt. 2020. “Black Robes in the Limelight: News Values and Requests to Televise Oral Arguments in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1991–2005.” In Open Judicial Politics, ed. Rorie Spill Solberg, Jennifer Segal Diascro and Eric Waltenburg. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
   Google Scholar
• Bryan, Amanda C., and Christopher D. Kromphardt. 2016. “Public Opinion, Public Support, and Counter-Attitudinal Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 37 (4):298–317. doi: 10.1080/0098261X.2016.1179608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldeira, Gregory, John Wright, and Christopher Zorn. 1999. “Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15 (3):549–72. doi: 10.1093/jleo/15.3.549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvin, Bryan, Paul M. Collins, and Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha. 2011. “On the Relationship between Public Opinion and Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (4):736–48. doi: 10.1177/1065912910376387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, Tom S. 2011. The Limits of Judicial Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collier, David, Jody LaPorte, and Jason Seawright. 2012. “Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (1):217–32. doi: 10.1177/1065912912437162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, Maura. 2013. “9th Circuit to allow live video of hearings in major cases.” Los Angeles Times. December 2, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, Lee, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland. 2007. “The Judicial Common Space.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23 (2):303–25. doi: 10.1093/jleo/ewm024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, Lee, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, James L, and Gregory A. Caldeira. 2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, James L., and Michael J. Nelson. 2017. “Reconsidering Positivity Theory: What Roles Do Politicization, Ideological Disagreement, and Legal Realism Play in Shaping U.S. Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14 (3):592–617. doi: 10.1111/jels.12157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, James L., Milton Lodge, and Benjamin Woodson. 2014. “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law & Society Review 48 (4):837–66. doi: 10.1111/lasr.12104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles, Michael, Virginia Hettinger, and Todd C. Peppers. 2001. “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (3):623–41. doi: 10.1177/106591290105400307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glennon, Colin, and Logan Strother. 2019. “The Maintenance of Institutional Legitimacy in Supreme Court Justices Public Rhetoric.” Journal of Law and Courts 7 (2):241–61. doi: 10.1086/703065.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, Matthew EK. 2011. The Nature of Supreme Court Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hazelton, Morgan, Rachael K. Hinkle, and Jee Seon Jeon. 2016. “Sound the Alarm? Judicial Decisions regarding Publication and Dissent.” American Politics Research 44 (4):649–81. doi: 10.1177/1532673X16628640.
   Google Scholar
• Hettinger, Virginia A., Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy L. Martinek. 2006. Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hinkle, Rachael K., Michael J. Nelson, and Morgan L.W. Hazelton. 2020. “Deferring, Deliberating, or Dodging Review: Explaining Counterjudge Success in the U.” Journal of Law and Courts 8 (2):277–300. doi: 10.1086/709911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hitt, Matthew P., and Kathleen Searles. 2018. “Media Coverage and Public Approval of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Communication 35 (4):566–86. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2018.1467517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobi, Tonja, Timothy R. Johnson, Eve M. Ringsmuth, and Matthew Sag. 2021. “Oral Argument in the Time of COVID: The Chief Plays Calvinball.” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 30 (2):399–459.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Molly T., and Carol Krafka. 1994. “Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings: An Evaluation of the Pilot Program in Six District Courts and Two Courts of Appeals.” Federal Judicial Center 1–49.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Timothy R. 2017. “Courtroom Proceedings in US Federal Courts.” In The Oxford Handbook of US Judicial Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press 186–200.
   Google Scholar
• Krehbiel, Jay. 2016. “The Politics of Judicial Procedures: The Role of Public Oral Hearings in the German Constitutional Court.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4):990–1005. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krewson, Christopher. 2019. “Save This Honorable Court: Shaping Public Perceptionsof the Supreme Court off the Bench.” Political Research Quarterly 72 (3):686–99. doi: 10.1177/1065912918801563.
   Google Scholar
• Krumholz, Peter J. 2012. “The Case for Greater Public Access to Oral Argument Recordings in the Tenth Circuit.” Denver University Law Review 89 (2):395–408.
   Google Scholar
• Liptak, Adam. 2011. “Supreme Court TV? Nice Idea, but Still Not Likely.” New York Times. November 28, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Mauro, Tony. 2011. “Let the Cameras Roll: Cameras in the Court and the Myth of Supreme Court Exceptionalism.” Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal 1 (3):259–76.
   Google Scholar
• McLachlin, Beverly. 2003. “Courts, Transparency and Public Confidence - To the Better Administration of Justice.” Deakin Law Review 8 (1):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, Sarah, Alex Clayton, and Hector Murphy. 2021. “Seeing Justice Done: Courtroom Filming and the Deceptions of Transparency.” Crime, Media, Culture 17 (1):127–144.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, Michael J., Morgan L.W. Hazelton, and Rachael Hinkle. 2022. “How Interpersonal Contact Affects Appellate Review.” Journal of Politics 84 (1):673–677.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, John. 2014. Supreme Court Dogs: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO). YouTube. Accessed on January 4, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9prhPV2PI.
   Google Scholar
• O’Scannlain, Diarmuid F. 2005. “Cameras in the Courtroom.”. Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
   Google Scholar
• O’Scannlain, Diarmuid F. 2007. “Some Reflections on Cameras in the Courtroom.” Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 9:323–30.
   Google Scholar
• Owens, Ryan J., and Patrick C. Wohlfarth. 2017. “Public Mood, Previous Electoral Experience, and Responsiveness among Federal Circuit Court Judges.” American Politics Research 45 (6):1003–31. doi: 10.1177/1532673X17692325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, Richard A. 2000. “Is the Ninth Circuit Too Large? A Statistical Study of Judicial Quality.” The Journal of Legal Studies 29 (2):711–9. doi: 10.1086/468090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salamone, Michael. 2018. Perceptions of a Polarized Court: how Division among Justices Shapes the Supreme Court’s Public Image. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sartori, Anne E. 2003. “An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models without Exclusion Restrictions.” Political Analysis 11 (2):111–38. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpg001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, Kevin M. 2006. “Understanding Judicial Hierarchy: Reversals And the Behavior of Intermediate Appellate Judges.” Law & Society Review 40 (1):163–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00249.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sill, Kaitlyn l., Emily T. Metzgar, and Stella M. Rouse. 2013. “Media Coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court: How Do Journalists Assess the Importance of Court Decisions?” Political Communication 30 (1):58–80. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.737414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solberg, Rorie Spill, and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2015. The Media, the Court, and the Misrepresentation: The New Myth of the Court. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Staton, Jeffrey K. 2006. “Constitutional Review and the Selective Promotion of Case Results.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (1):98–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00172.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stepniak, Daniel. 2012. Audio-Visual Coverage of Courts: A Comparative Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Straubhaar, Joseph, Robert LaRose, and Lucinda Davenport. 2009. Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture and Technology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Strother, Logan, and Colin Glennon. 2021. “An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Supreme Court Justices’ Public Rhetoric on Perceptions of Judicial Legitimacy.” Law & Social Inquiry 46 (2):435–54. doi: 10.1017/lsi.2020.38.
   Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin, and Daniel Rosen. 1963. “The Supreme Courts Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” In Judicial Decision-Making. New York: New York University Press 111–32.
   Google Scholar
• Tong, Lorraine H. 2006. “Televising Supreme Court and Other Federal Court Proceedings: Legislation and Issues.” Congressional Research Service.
   Google Scholar
• Tutton, Jordan, Kathy Mack, and Sharyn Roach Anleu. 2018. “Judicial Demeanor: Oral Argument in the High Court of Australia.” Justice System Journal 39 (3):273–99. doi: 10.1080/0098261X.2018.1463185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanberg, Georg. 2001. “Legislative-Judicial Relations: A Game-Theoretic Approach to Constitutional Review.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (2):346–61. doi: 10.2307/2669345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vining, Jr., Richard L., and Phil, Marcin. 2014. “An Economic Theory of Supreme Court News.” Political Communication 31 (1):94–111. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.747189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, Blair S. 1999. “Once Novel, Televised Trials Now Common In Most States.” PEW Charitable Trusts. December 3, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Wasby, Stephen L. 1988. “Technology and Communication in a Federal Court: The Ninth Circuit.” Santa Clara Law Review 28 (1):1–28.
   Google Scholar
• West, Sonja R. 2013. “The Monster in the Courtroom.” Brigham Young University Law Review 6:1953–88.
   Google Scholar
• Youm, Kyu Ho. 2013. “Cameras in the Courtroom in the Twenty-First Century: The U.S. Supreme Court Learning from Abroad?” Brigham Young University Law Review 6:1989–2032.
   Google Scholar
• Zuber, Katie, Udi Sommer, and Jonathan Parent. 2015. “Setting the Agenda of the United States Supreme Court? Organized Interests and the Decision to File an Amicus Curiae Brief at Cert.” Justice System Journal 36 (2):119–37. doi: 10.1080/0098261X.2014.965857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar