Known for shedding light on the link among the courts, public policy, and the political environment, Judicial Process in America provides a comprehensive overview of the American judiciary. It considers judges, lawyers, and litigants, as well as the variables at play in judicial decision making. In this Tenth Edition, authors Robert A. Carp, Ronald Stidham, Kenneth L. Manning, and Lisa M. Holmes examine the recent Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage and health care subsidies, the effect of three women justices on the Court’s patterns of decision, and the policy-making role of state tribunals. Original data on the decision-making behavior of the Obama trial judges―which are unavailable anywhere else―ensure this text’s position as a standard bearer in the field.
Robert A. Carp is professor of political science at the University of Houston. He is coauthor of Policymaking and Politics in the Federal Courts; Politics and Judgment in Federal District Courts; the Federal Courts, fourth edition, with Ronald Stidham; and numerous articles on judicial process.
Ronald Stidham is professor emeritus of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University. He is coauthor of The Federal Courts, Fifth Edition, with Robert A. Carp and Kenneth L. Manning; The State Courts, with Robert A. Carp and Kenneth L. Manning; and numerous articles in legal, social science, and criminal justice journals.
Kenneth L. Manning is professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. He is coauthor with Robert A. Carp and Ronald Stidham of The Federal Courts (Fifth Edition) and The State Courts, and coeditor of Political Perspectives: Essays on Government and Politics. Manning′s work on the politics of judicial decision-making and federal judicial selection have been published in a variety of journals.
Professor Holmes specializes in judicial politics, constitutional law, gender and law, and American politics. Her research focuses on various issues surrounding the politics of appointing federal and state court judges. Her recent work on how presidents use judicial nominees to court favor with their partisan supporters and interested groups has been published in Presidential Studies Quarterly, American Politics Research, and the Drake Law Review. Her current project examines the implications of politicized appointment politics on the careers and attitudes of judicial nominees.