This unique empirical study investigates how the method of judicial selection significantly affects state-supreme-court policies in several important areas of law-business, criminal procedure, and family law. After examining different theories and surveying the research about judicial selection, this comparative study of policies in six states-Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia-challenges current assumptions. The author finds that appointed judges prefer the interests of the individual over those of the state in criminal-procedure cases and are the most innovative in business law; that elected judges prefer the interests of the state over the individual; and that legislatively selected judges acquiesce to the policy preferences of other branches of government and are the most inactive in terms of policy initiation. For students and teachers in law, political science, and history; for lawyers and judges; for interest groups concerned about state policy; and for policymakers and other professionals concerned with American government and public administration.