Asserted But Unproven: A Further Response to the Lindgren Study's Claim that the American Bar Association's Ratings of Judicial Nominees Are Biased
Publication
, Journal Article
Vidmar, N; Saks, M
Published in: Journal of Law & Politics
2003
Duke Scholars
Published In
Journal of Law & Politics
Publication Date
2003
Volume
19
Start / End Page
177 / 202
Citation
APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Vidmar, N., & Saks, M. (2003). Asserted But Unproven: A Further Response to the Lindgren Study's Claim that the American Bar Association's Ratings of Judicial Nominees Are Biased. Journal of Law & Politics, 19, 177–202.
Vidmar, N., and M. Saks. “Asserted But Unproven: A Further Response to the Lindgren Study's Claim that the American Bar Association's Ratings of Judicial Nominees Are Biased.” Journal of Law & Politics 19 (2003): 177–202.
Vidmar N, Saks M. Asserted But Unproven: A Further Response to the Lindgren Study's Claim that the American Bar Association's Ratings of Judicial Nominees Are Biased. Journal of Law & Politics. 2003;19:177–202.
Vidmar, N., and M. Saks. “Asserted But Unproven: A Further Response to the Lindgren Study's Claim that the American Bar Association's Ratings of Judicial Nominees Are Biased.” Journal of Law & Politics, vol. 19, 2003, pp. 177–202.
Vidmar N, Saks M. Asserted But Unproven: A Further Response to the Lindgren Study's Claim that the American Bar Association's Ratings of Judicial Nominees Are Biased. Journal of Law & Politics. 2003;19:177–202.
Published In
Journal of Law & Politics
Publication Date
2003
Volume
19
Start / End Page
177 / 202