Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics
Publication Date
2013
Publication Title
Law & Economics Working Papers
Abstract
The standard model of judicial behavior suggests that judges primarily care about deciding cases in ways that further their political ideologies. But judicial behavior seems much more complex. Politicians who nominate people for judgeships do not typically tout their ideology (except sometimes using vague code words), but they always claim that the nominees will be competent judges. Moreover, it stands to reason that voters would support politicians who appoint competent as well as ideologically compatible judges. We test this hypothesis using a dataset consisting of promotions to the federal circuit courts. We find, using a set of objective measures of judicial performance, that competence seems to matter in promotions in that the least competent judges do not get elevated. But the judges who score the highest on our competence measures also do not get elevated. So, while there is no loser's reward, there may be something of a winner's curse, where those with the highest levels of competence hurt their chances of elevation.
Number
667
Recommended Citation
Eric Posner, Mitu Gulati & Stephen J. Choi, "A Winner's Curse?: Promotions from the Lower Federal Courts" (Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 667, 2013).
Additional Information
Chicago Unbound includes both works in progress and final versions of articles. Please be aware that a more recent version of this article may be available on Chicago Unbound, SSRN or elsewhere.