Robert J. Hume is a Professor of Political Science at Fordham University and is currently serving as the Chair of the Political Science Department. Dr. Hume has degrees from the College of the Holy Cross (B.A.) and the University of Virginia (M.A., Ph.D.). He is the author of three books on law and policy: How Courts Impact Federal Administrative Behavior (Routledge 2009, winner of the 2010 Alpha Sigma Nu Book Award in Professional Studies), Courthouse Democracy and Minority Rights: Same-Sex Marriage in the States (Oxford University Press 2013), and Ethics and Accountability on the U.S. Supreme Court: An Analysis of Recusal Practices (Fall 2017, SUNY Press). He has published in American Politics Research, the Law & Society Review, the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Justice System Journal, and Publius. His textbook, Judicial Behavior and Policymaking: An Introduction (Rowman & Littlefield), is expected in February 2018.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
I am pleased to announce the forthcoming publication of Judicial Behavior and Policymaking: An Introduction (Rowman & Littlefield, February 2018). This introductory textbook explores why judges make the decisions they do, who has the power to influence judicial decision-making, and the consequences of court decisions on policymaking. Further, this book serves to familiarize students with quantitative methods of analyzing data to better understand the field of judicial politics, and how professional political scientists conduct research about the courts. Designed for undergraduates and graduate students alike, this accessible and engaging text provides a thorough introduction to the world of judicial politics. Please feel free to contact me with questions about this textbook or else find out more information here or here.
Ethics and Accountability on the U.S. Supreme Court: An Analysis of Recusal Practices. Albany, NY: Suny Press (December 2017)
This original research monograph provides a comprehensive examination of the causes and consequences of recusal behavior on the U.S. Supreme Court. I explore the conditions under which recusals occur, as well as the impact of recusals on case outcomes, the scope of majority opinions, the likelihood of certiorari grants, and public attitudes about the Court. I trace the evolution of media commentary about recusals, showing how popular discourse about recusals has become politicized and is inflaming demands for reform. I also provide readers with a rich historical overview of the Court’s recusal practices and describe and evaluate proposals for reforming the process. My key finding is that the justices do not strictly follow the recusal guidelines set by Congress, but neither do they ignore these guidelines. Instead, the justices are strategic in their compliance with ethical rules, balancing Congressional guidelines against other institutional and policy goals.