BOOKS & READERS
Standard texts on law, courts and judicial policy-making offer a collection of facts and details about the intricacies of the American legal system and judicial decision-making, but they often ignore how law and courts fit within 0broader political and policy-making processes.Judicial Policymaking: Readings on Law, Politics and Public Policy takes a different approach. It provides a broad range of materials, including scholarly writings, newspaper articles, and political cartoons, to give readers a set of tools for exploring central questions about the complex and varied role of law and courts in contemporary American society: What are the core promises of and limits on law and courts?
In an era of polarization, narrow party majorities, and increasing use of supermajority requirements in the Senate, policy entrepreneurs must find ways to reach across the aisle and build bipartisan coalitions in Congress. One such coalition-building strategy is the politics of efficiency, or reform that is aimed at eliminating waste from existing policies and programs. After all, reducing inefficiency promises to reduce costs without cutting benefits, which should appeal to members of both political parties, especially given tight budgetary constraints in Washington.
This volume proposes a new way of understanding the policymaking process in the United States by examining the complex interactions among the three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial. Collectively across the chapters a central theme emerges, that the U.S. Constitution has created a policymaking process characterized by ongoing interaction among competing institutions with overlapping responsibilities and different constituencies, one in which no branch plays a single static part. At different times and under various conditions, all governing institutions have a distinct role in making policy, as well as in enforcing and legitimizing it.
Since the mid-1970s, Congress has passed hundreds of overrides—laws that explicitly seek to reverse or modify judicial interpretations of statutes. Whether front-page news or not, overrides serve potentially vital functions in American policy-making. Federal statutes—and court cases interpreting them—often require revision. Some are ambiguous, some conflict, and others are obsolete. Under these circumstances, overrides promise Congress a means to repair flawed statutes, reconcile discordant court decisions, and reverse errant judicial interpretations.
Selected Peer-Reviewed Articles
- Thomas F. Burke and Jeb Barnes, “Is There an Empirical Rights Literature?” Studies for Law, Politics & Society (2009) 48:69-91 PDF
- Jeb Barnes, “In Defense of Asbestos Litigation: Judicial Policy-Making in a World of Uncertainty, Second Bests and Shared Policy-Making Responsibilities” Law & Social Inquiry (2009) 34(1): 5-30. PDF
- Jeb Barnes, “Courts and the Puzzle of Institutional Stability and Change: Administrative Drift and Judicial Innovation in the Case of Asbestos” Political Research Quarterly (2008) 61(4):636-648. PDF
- Jeb Barnes, “Bringing the Courts Back In: Interbranch Perspectives on the Role of Courts in American Politics and Policy Making,” Annual Review of Political Science (2007) 10:25-43. PDF
- Jeb Barnes, “Rethinking the Landscape of Tort Reform: Lessons from the Asbestos Case,” Justice Systems Journal (2007) 28(2): 157-181.
- Jeb Barnes and Thomas Burke, “The Diffusion of Rights: From Law on the Books to Organizational Practices,” Law & Society Review (2006) 40(3): 493-524. PDF
Book Chapters, Law Review Articles and Book Reviews
- Jeb Barnes, “Law’s Allure and an Interbranch Perspective on Law and Politics,” Law & Social Inquiry (Cambridge University Press)) (2010) 35(4): 1029-40. PDF
- Jeb Barnes, Book Review: Suing the Tobacco and Lead Paint Industries: Government Litigation as a Public Health Prescription by Donald Gifford, Law & Politics Book Review (2010) 20(12): 666-670.
- Jeb Barnes, “What Do Trial Courts Do? Civil Litigation and the Policy-Making Process,” in Exploring Judicial Politics (Oxford University Press 2008).
- Jeb Barnes, “Adversarial Legalism, the Rise of Judicial Policy-Making, and the Separation of Powers Doctrine,” in Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective (Georgetown University Press 2004).
- Jeb Barnes, “Congressional Compromise on Election Reform: A Look Forward and Backward,” in Crigler, Just, and MacCaffrey, eds., After 2000: The Politics of Election Reform (Oxford University Press 2003).
- Jeb Barnes and Mark Miller, “Putting the Pieces Together: American Lawmaking from an Inter-Branch Perspective,” in Making Policy, Making Law supra.
- Jeb Barnes and Mark Miller, “Governance as Dialogue,” Making Policy-Making Law, supra.
- Jeb Barnes, “Bankrupt Bargain? Bankruptcy Reform and the Politics of Adversarial Legalism,” The Journal of Law & Politics (Fall 1997) XIII(4): 893-935.
- Jeb Barnes and Thomas F. Burke, How Policy Creates Politics: Adversarial Legalism and the Patchwork American State (book project under advanced contract with Oxford University Press).
- Thomas F. Burke, Jeb Barnes, and Malcolm Feeley, editors, The Politics of Legalism (proposal under review).
- Jeb Barnes and Thomas F. Burke, “Making Way: Legal Mobilization, Organizational Response, and the Impact of Disability Access Law (under review)
- Jeb Barnes and Thomas F. Burke, “How Policy Creates Politics: The Case of Vaccine Politics” (in preparation)
- Jeb Barnes and Nicholas Weller, “The Promise of Process Tracing: Case selection a World of Causal Complexity” (under review)
Selected Conference Papers
- Tom Burke and Jeb Barnes, “Is There an Empirical Literature on Rights,” Meet the Authors Roundtable, 2011 Law & Society Association, San Francisco, CA. PDF
- Jeb Barnes and Nicholas Weller, “Selecting Pathway Cases in a World of Causal Complexity,” 2011 Midwestern Political Science Association Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois (forthcoming)
- Jeb Barnes and Tom Burke, “Intercurrence, Adversarial Legalism and the Politics of Injury Compensation,” 2010 Association for Public Policy and Management Annual Conference, Boston, Massachusetts and 2011 Seminar on History, Institutions and Politics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
- Jeb Barnes and Tom Burke, “The Politics of Injury in the United States: How Law Shapes Politics,” 2009 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada.
- Jeb Barnes and Tom Burke, “Mobilization and Diffusion of Law: Organizational Responses the Accessibility Laws at the Community Level,” 2007 Law & Society Association Conference, Berlin, Germany.
- Jeb Barnes, “In Defense of Asbestos Litigation: Judicial Policy-Making in a World of Second Bests and Shared Policy-Making Responsibility,” 2007 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois. (Initial draft presented in a roundtable discussion at 2007 New England Political Science Association Conference, Boston, Massachusetts). PDF
- Jeb Barnes, “Courts and the Puzzle of Institutional Stability and Change: Administrative Drift and Judicial Innovation in the Case of Asbestos,” 2006 Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
- Jeb Barnes, “Is Adversarial Legalism Path Dependent? Congressional Inertia and Court-Based Tort Reform during the Asbestos Crisis,” 2005 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
- Jeb Barnes and Tom Burke, “The Diffusion of Rights: From Law on the Books to Organizational Practices,” 2005 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
- Jeb Barnes, “Is Adversarial Legalism Path Dependent? Congressional Inertia and Reform Through Adaptation in the Case of Asbestos,” 2005 Law and Society Summer Institute, Oxford University, Oxford, England.
- Jeb Barnes and Thomas F. Burke, “The Diffusion of Rights: Mapping Pathways from Disability Rights on the Books to Rights Practices at the Community Level,” 2005 Western Political Science Association Meeting, Oakland, California.
- Jeb Barnes, “Trying to Settle the Dust: Courts, Congress and the Politics of Asbestos,” 2004 Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Research Conference, The Aspen Institute, Aspen, Colorado.
- Thomas F. Burke and Jeb Barnes, “What Do Rights Do? A Research Design for Studying the Community Level Effects of Disability Rights,” 2004 Western Political Science Association Meeting, Portland, Oregon.
- Jeb Barnes, “Smoke Signals or Marching Orders? Testing Whether Legislative Overrides Matter,” 2002 American Political Science Association Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts.
- Jeb Barnes, “Does Pluralism Work? A View from the Override Process (Or An Experiment in Large-N Process-Tracing…),” 2002 Western Political Science Association Meeting, Long Beach, California.
- Jeb Barnes, “Congressional Strategies for Counting Votes and Making Votes Count After the 2000 Election; Theoretical Approaches, Political Prospects, and Hidden Costs,” Election Reform: 2000 and Beyond, A Conference Sponsored by USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law & Politics, April 26, 2001