We live in an age where one person's judicial "activist" legislating from the bench is another's impartial arbiter fairly interpreting the law. After the Supreme Court ended the 2000 Presidential election with its decision in Bush v. Gore, many critics claimed that the justices had simply voted their political preferences. But Justice Clarence Thomas, among many others, disagreed and insisted that the Court had acted according to legal principle, stating: "I plead with you, that, whatever you do, don't try to apply the rules of the political world to this institution; they do not apply." The legitimacy of our courts rests on their capacity to give broadly acceptable answers to controversial questions. Yet Americans are divided in their beliefs about whether our courts operate on unbiased legal principle or political interest. Comparing law to the practice of common courtesy, Keith Bybee explains how our courts not only survive under these suspicions of hypocrisy, but actually depend on them. Law, like courtesy, furnishes a means of getting along. It frames disputes in collectively acceptable ways, and it is a habitual practice, drummed into the minds of citizens by popular culture and formal institutions. The rule of law, thus, is neither particularly fair nor free of paradoxical tensions, but it endures. Although pervasive public skepticism raises fears of judicial crisis and institutional collapse, such skepticism is also an expression of how our legal system ordinarily functions.

Top US legal scholars and political scientists examine how the law shapes judges’ behavior and decisions, and what it means for society at large. Although there is a growing consensus among legal scholars and political scientists, significant points of divergence remain. Contributors to What’s Law Got to Do with It? explore ways to reach greater accord on the complexity and nuance of judicial decision making and judicial elections, while acknowledging that agreement on what judges do is not likely to occur any time soon. As the first forum in which political scientists and legal scholars engage with one another on these hot button issues, this volume strives to establish a true interdisciplinary conversation. The inclusion of reactions from practicing judges puts into high relief the deep-seated and opposing beliefs about the roles of law and politics in judicial work. Praise for What’s Law Got to Do with It? “Geyh (associate dean for research and John F. Kimberling professor of law, Indiana Univ. School of Law) is well qualified to edit this reader about the interaction of law and politics in contemporary society. The contributors . . . are among the very best scholars in the legal and political science realm . . . . The writing is lively and easy to follow for the somewhat sophisticated reader . . . . Highly recommended.” —Choice “Readers will find these essays fascinating, thoughtful and sometimes infuriating, as conventional disciplinary wisdom is defended, modified and refuted. The result is a terrific text for all students of the legal process.” —Mark A. Graber, University of Maryland “This volume pulls together an excellent cast to examine one of the most intriguing and most difficult questions in the study of law and politics today—what role does law play in the job of judging? There is a lot to learn in these pages, and this book does a fine job of pushing the conversation forward.” —Keith Whittington, Princeton University

"Effective policy-making in the administration of justice requires a solid understanding of public behaviour. This book presents the results of the most wide-ranging survey ever conducted by an independent body or government agency into the experiences of ordinary citizens as they grapple with the kinds of problems that could ultimately end in the civil courts. Funded by the Nuffield Foundation, the survey identifies how often people experience problems for which there might be a legal solution and how they set about solving them. Revealing crucial differences in the approach taken to different kinds of potential legal problems, the study describes the factors that influence decisions about whether and where to seek advice about problems, and whether and when to go to law. In addition to exploring experiences of courts, tribunals and ADR processes, the study also provides important insights into public confidence in the courts and the judiciary. For the first time the study reveals the public's perspective on access to civil justice and makes a significant contribution to debate about how far civil justice reforms coincide with public experience and expectations about resolving justiciable problems."--Back cover.