Search for: "Brandon Bartels"
Results 1 - 20
of 24
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Sep 2010, 2:57 pm
With the end of the summer comes the end of Brandon Bartel’s terrific, extended, guest-stint. [read post]
7 May 2010, 8:38 am
Brandon Bartels, an assistant professor of political science at GW, will be joining us for at least a month do just that. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 7:20 am
In a draft article with the political scientist Brandon Bartels--which we will post later this summer--we argue that the... [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 8:11 am
Walter Dorn, Stewart Webb & Sylvain Pâquet, From Wargaming to Peacegaming: Digital Simulations with Peacekeeper Roles Needed Anup Phayal & Brandon C. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 2:58 pm
Brandon Bartels finds one of the GOP's arguments weak: The new line of attack is that Kagan is incapable of being impartial because of her political/policy role in the Clinton administration. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 3:46 am
At Concurring Opinions, Brandon Bartels has this interview with the authors of a new book, "In Defense of Judicial Elections. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 7:25 am
On the prospects of Proposition 8 before the Supreme Court, Brandon Bartels of Concurring Opinions “has little doubt” that the Court will overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage and “declare a constitutional right to gay marriage,” while Appellate Daily concludes that Prop 8’s supporters “have far more to lose” in the Supreme Court than its opponents. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 7:30 am
As Brandon Bartels points out, even with the Court moving to the right, the majority of the last decade's "salient decisions"—decisions that made the front page of the New York Times—come out the way the Left would prefer. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 8:06 am
Based on his own quantitative study of the Court with Christopher Johnston, Brandon Bartels of Concurring Opinions concludes that this Court is most fairly characterized as a “moderate” one. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 12:55 pm
" Over and above the work on legal cognition done by researchers like Brandon Bartels at GWU and Paul Collins at North Texas U, researchers are starting to think about and study how other psychological constructs like motivation (ex. [read post]
11 May 2010, 12:52 pm
Here's Brandon Bartels at Co-Op, Paul Horwitz at Prawfs and Jonathan Adler at Volokh. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 8:36 am
Brandon Bartels of Concurring Opinions reviews Justice O’Connor’s recent op-ed in the New York Times in which she continues to criticize judicial elections. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 6:39 am
” Senator Graham’s explanation of his “yes” vote also attracted the attention of Brandon Bartels at Concurring Opinions, who writes that “Graham is essentially calling for a restoration of a [confirmation] standard from a bygone era. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
(No: Brandon Bartels agrees). [read post]
10 May 2010, 1:20 pm
At Concurring Opinions, Brandon Bartels discusses the possibility of strong Republican opposition to Kagan as a candidate, while at the Associated Press, Jesse Holland and Julie Hirschfeld Davis argue that the Solicitor General will easily be confirmed this summer, as does Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 8:13 am
At Concurring Opinions, Brandon Bartels expresses doubt that the Kagan confirmation hearings taught us “anything new about the Supreme Court appointment process”’ and concludes that if President Obama has the opportunity to replace a conservative Justice, “we can surely count on a highly dramatic, contentious appointment process far eclipsing [Kagan's]. [read post]
13 May 2010, 8:07 am
” At Concurring Opinions, Brandon Bartels explains why he thinks judicial experience is important. [read post]
26 May 2010, 6:46 am
At Concurring Opinions, Brandon Bartels crunches the numbers on Justice Kennedy’s voting behavior to analyze his role as the swing vote and predict whether Kagan might have any impact on his, and the Court’s, decisionmaking. [read post]
14 May 2010, 8:13 am
” Brandon Bartels comments on the issue as well at Concurring Opinions. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 5:40 am
Back at Concurring Opinions, Brandon Bartels brings us an interview of two academics, neither of whom is a lawyer, who explain why their "empirical study" of judicial elections leads them to conclude that their detractors, like that evil Sandra Day O'Connor, are poopyheads. [read post]
