Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Winning Wirzburger And Defeating The Blaine Amendments: Arguing Present Efficacy Instead Of Past Intent, Brendan Michael Groves
Winning Wirzburger And Defeating The Blaine Amendments: Arguing Present Efficacy Instead Of Past Intent, Brendan Michael Groves
ExpressO
The case of Wirzburger v. Galvin, currently on a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, may set the tone for all religious discrimination cases in the future. Massachusetts’ constitutional amendments that proscribe any citizen initiatives from either dealing with religion in general or attempting to repeal the states Blaine Amendment are at issue in the case. Petitioner’s counsel, the Becket Fund, rightly views this case as paramount in the long-march to victory over the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments still codified in 37 state constitutions. However, they have lost almost every stage of the case.
This article argues that Wirzburger and …
Counter-Majoritarian Power And Judges' Political Speech, Michael R. Dimino
Counter-Majoritarian Power And Judges' Political Speech, Michael R. Dimino
ExpressO
Canons of ethics restrict judicial campaigning and prohibit sitting judges from engaging in political activity. Only recently, in Republican Party v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), has the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of these restrictions, concluding that judicial candidates must be allowed some opportunity to discuss legal and political issues in their campaigns. But White left many questions unanswered about the permissible scope of restrictions on judges’ political activity.
This Article suggests that those questions will be answered not by applying principles of free speech, but by analyzing the opportunities the restrictions provide for independent judicial policy-making. Restrictions on …
Reclaiming The Public Forum: Courts Must Stand Firm Against Governmental Efforts To Displace Dissidence, Christopher B. Ford
Reclaiming The Public Forum: Courts Must Stand Firm Against Governmental Efforts To Displace Dissidence, Christopher B. Ford
ExpressO
Recognizing that the right to free speech for dissidents is increasingly at risk in the United States, this submission catalogs manifold methods the government has employed to constrain free speech and urges that courts not only serve as a bulwark against further erosion of public expression of dissent but endeavor to restore access to the public forum that recently has been lost. The submission surveys the background of the right to free expression and provides details and examples of the government’s increasing tendency to suppress dissident speech by deploying heavily armed police in demonstrations, committing violent acts against peaceful protesters, …