The Political Behavior of Lawyers in the Louisiana House of Representatives (original) (raw)
Related papers
Lawyers in the legislature: The case of Ohio
The Social Science Journal, 2006
Do lawyer-legislators differ significantly from their non-lawyer colleagues? This question is significant given the large number of lawyers occupying state and federal legislatures. The predominant theory of "professional convergence" holds that lawyer-legislators and non-lawyer-legislators exhibit no significant differences. In examining the Ohio General Assembly, this study finds that lawyers tend to be more ambitious, and think of their legislative roles differently than their non-lawyer associates. The study concludes that convergence theory needs to be revised to become attuned to present day realities of law and politics.
Do legal elites—lawyers admitted to federal appellate bars—perceive the Supreme Court as a “political” institution? Legal elites differentiate themselves from the mass public in the amount and sources of information about the Court. They also hold near-universal perceptions of Court legitimacy, a result we use to derive competing expectations rooted in positivity theory and motivated reasoning theory. Survey data show that a sizable share of legal elites perceive the Court as political in its decision making, while a minority perceive the Court as activist and influenced by external political forces. Ideological disagreement with the Court’s outputs significantly elevates political perceptions of decision making, while it exhibits a null and moderate impact on perceptions of activism and external influence, respectively. Our results provide support for each theoretical perspective. Elites engage in what we call “local delegitimization” of specific decision-making procedures rather than “global delegitimization” of the institution itself.
The Not-So-New Normal of the Legal Profession: Facing and Confounding the Odds*
The American University journal of gender, social policy & the law, 2014
INTRODUCTIONAs you may know, this year the Nation celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the signature legislation of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" initiative, which barred unequal application of voter registration requirements, forbade discrimination in hiring practices, and outlawed segregation in public accommodations.1 In April, four presidents spoke at the L.B.J. Presidential Library's Civil Rights Summit in Austin, Texas to commemorate the Act and to pay special homage to the dream to which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously gave expression.2 Half of that number-President Obama and former President Clinton-are lawyers. And although former Presidents Bush and Carter, as well as a number of other courageous and notable people, also spoke at the Summit, it makes sense to foreground leaders who have been lawyers, and vice versa, in this discussion about the legal profession. The twin goals of L.B.J.'s Great Society-...
The Role of the Organized Bar in State Judicial Selection Reform: The Year 2000 Standards
2002
of the ABA. 1. The cases that challenge restrictions on judicial campaign speech generally challenge provisions of Canon 5 of the 1990 version of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct or Canon 7 of the 1972 version. See Stretton v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court, 944 F.2d 137 (3d Cir. 1991) (upholding constitutionality of "announce clause" of Canon 7 of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct, if narrowly construed); Buckley v. Jud. Inquiry Bd., 997 F.2d 224 (7th Cir. 1993) (finding Illinois rule regarding Canon 7(B)(1)(c) was unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibits all discussions of a candidate's views);