Abstract
ABSTRACT Some have argued that US judges should act like umpires, neutral actors who call balls and strikes according to the law. Though this is an appealing idea, it may have some troubling implications for descriptive representation on the courts. I explore two possible problems: first, that descriptive representation is erased for judges who fit the norm and, second, that it is over-emphasized for judges who do not. The judges-as-umpire ideal may lead to the reinforcement traditional identity hierarchies and the stigmatization of descriptive representation. I argue for an alternative approach to judging that avoids these problems and has implications for the study of descriptive representation in the judiciary more generally.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
