Welcome to the second issue of Volume 41 for the Justice System Journal. JSJ is published under an arrangement between the National Center for State Courts and Routledge (Taylor & Francis). The Journal’s commitment is to providing an outlet for innovative, social scientific research on the myriad of issues that pertain to the third branch of government. Information about JSJ, including the Journal’s Aims & Scopes as well as instructions for manuscript submissions, can be found at our website: http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj. Manuscript submissions are processed solely online through the ScholarOne system, and the direct link to submit a manuscript is http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj. We begin this issue with a pair of studies that seek to better understand parties’ goals in appealing to and arguing in front of the US Supreme Court. Our first article is by Claire B. Wofford of the College of Charleston, entitled “Why Try? Comparing the Aims of Parties and Amici in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Wofford tackles this question by positing that named parties to a case are primarily concerned with winning while amici seek to influence the broader legal policy the Court announces. Wofford argues that a focus on winning will actually mean proposing multiple legal options for the Court to choose from in a brief, as opposed to focusing on just one; conversely, a focus on a single legal rule emphasizes the desirability of that particular policy outcome. Wofford’s findings confirm these findings generally, but also reveal that interest groups are much more focused on winning, and not simply the adoption of particular legal rules, than conventional wisdom suggests. Andrew H. Smith’s (University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley) contribution to this broader debate delves into the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court given the high costs and low probability of acceptance. In “The Effect of Ideology and Resource Advantages on Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Smith argues and finds that trends over time support the notion that increased resource gaps between litigants leads to fewer appeals, though it’s unclear whether this is more due to a lack of resources for disadvantaged litigants or due to strategic behavior by advantaged litigants seeking to avoid the creation of nationwide precedent. Smith also finds mixed support for the idea that appeals decisions reflect a greater circuit-Supreme Court ideological divide. Read in tandem with Wofford’s argument, both these pieces raise important questions for future research about litigant goals and calculations, and also how these goals and calculations may differ across time, and types of litigants. Our third research article focuses on “Judicial Nominations to the Courts of Appeals and the Strategic Decision to Elevate.” Mikel Norris (Coastal Caroline University) argues presidents choose nominees with an eye toward the likelihood of a contentious confirmation battle. When such battles are more likely, presidents will strategically choose to elevate less extreme sitting district court judges to try and forestall opposition. The potential prize? The ability to nominate a new district court judge more reflective of their preferred preferences. The implication of Norris’s article is that presidents engage in a multi-year, long-term strategy when filling vacancies on the federal bench. Our final article is a Special Report produced by Brian J. Ostrom and Jordan Bowman of the National Center for State Courts summarizing their field evaluation of holistic defense practices in practice as part of a project funded by the National Institutes of Justice. Based on an examination of three public defender offices, they highlight a number of benefits, as well as a number of

中文翻译：

---

编辑的来信

欢迎阅读《司法系统期刊》第 41 卷第二期。JSJ 是根据国家法院中心和 Routledge (Taylor & Francis) 之间的安排出版的。该杂志致力于为与政府第三部门相关的无数问题提供创新的社会科学研究渠道。关于 JSJ 的信息，包括期刊的目标和范围以及手稿提交说明，可以在我们的网站上找到：http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj。手稿提交仅通过 ScholarOne 系统在线处理，提交手稿的直接链接是 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj。我们从两个研究开始这个问题，这些研究旨在更好地理解当事人在美国最高法院上诉和争论的目标。我们的第一篇文章是查尔斯顿学院的克莱尔·B·沃福德 (Claire B. Wofford) 撰写的，题为“为什么要尝试？在美国最高法院诉讼中比较当事人和阿米奇的目的。” Wofford 通过假定案件的指定当事人主要关心获胜而解决这个问题，而 amici 试图影响法院宣布的更广泛的法律政策。Wofford 认为，专注于获胜实际上意味着在一份摘要中提出多种法律选项供法院选择，而不是只关注一个；相反，对单一法律规则的关注强调了该特定政策结果的可取性。Wofford 的发现总体上证实了这些发现，但也表明利益集团比传统智慧所暗示的更注重获胜，而不仅仅是采用特定的法律规则。安德鲁·H。史密斯（德克萨斯大学里奥格兰德河谷分校）对这场更广泛的辩论的贡献深入探讨了考虑到高成本和低接受可能性而向最高法院上诉的决定。在“意识形态和资源优势对向美国最高法院上诉的影响”一文中，史密斯认为并发现随着时间的推移趋势支持这样一种观点，即诉讼人之间的资源差距增加导致上诉减少，尽管尚不清楚这是否更多是由于处于不利地位的诉讼当事人缺乏资源，或者由于有利的诉讼当事人试图避免在全国范围内创造先例而采取的战略行为。史密斯还发现，上诉决定反映了更大的巡回法院与最高法院意识形态分歧的观点，得到了不同的支持。与沃福德的论点一起阅读，这两篇文章都为未来关于诉讼目标和计算的研究提出了重要问题，以及这些目标和计算如何随着时间和诉讼人类型的不同而不同。我们的第三篇研究文章侧重于“上诉法院的司法提名和提升战略决策”。Mikel Norris (Coastal Caroline University) 认为，总统选择候选人时会着眼于有争议的确认战的可能性。当此类战斗更有可能发生时，总统会战略性地选择提升不那么极端的地方法院法官，以试图阻止反对派。潜在的奖品？提名新的地区法院法官的能力更能反映他们的偏好。诺里斯文章的含义是总统从事多年的，填补联邦法官席空缺时的长期战略。我们的最后一篇文章是由国家法院中心的 Brian J. Ostrom 和 Jordan Bowman 制作的特别报告，总结了他们在实践中对整体辩护实践的实地评估，作为由美国国家司法研究所资助的项目的一部分。根据对三个公设辩护人办公室的检查，他们强调了一些好处，以及一些