Collegiality only marginally shifts judges’ settled votes

Evidence

An appellate court is in reality a small group working together over a prolonged period of time: for the judges, it is “a little like being married in a system of arranged marriage with no divorce.” Thus, it is not surprising that personal relations with fellow judges also play a role in judicial decision making; agreeable and considerate judges are apt to gain a better reception for their arguments than their more contentious colleagues. Ultimately, though, judges typically come to the bench with firmly established views, and their fellow judges have few weapons beyond legal argument to induce them to change their minds. Group interaction therefore has only a limited effect on how judges vote. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1338

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to ch54 claim that party affiliation predicts judicial votes and that judicial attitudes are firmly held. — connects to: Sitting justices rarely change views, so screening nominees works — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 540; Group interaction only marginally changes judges’ established voting patterns — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2623; Conference discussion rarely changes a justice’s vote because format discourages interchange — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1562 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Group interaction only marginally changes judges’ established voting patterns #corroborates (0.95) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2623
• Conference discussion rarely changes a justice’s vote because format discourages interchange #expands (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1562