Digital Commons Network^™

The Impact Of Justice Scalia's Replacement On Gender Equality Issues, Wilson R. Huhn

ConLawNOW

The last forty-six years may be accurately described as the era of the modern Republican Supreme Court. As a result of presidential elections, Republican presidents have nominated all ten of the Justices appointed to the United States Supreme Court between 1969 and 1991. Republicans have thus controlled the Court since 1970. During this period the right to gender equality was recognized and the right to marriage equality was realized. However, also during this period many Republican Justices staunchly opposed gender equality, and far more remains to be accomplished.

Since Justice Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court has been deadlocked on a …

When The Chief Justice Serves In The Legislative Branch, Roy E. Brownell Ii

ConLawNOW

This article argues that the Chief Justice is considered part of the legislative branch during presidential impeachment trials. In so arguing, this article first argues, as a matter of constitutional text, that the Chief Justice during presidential impeachment trials steps into the shoes of the president of the Senate. The Chief Justice’s authority in this vein is granted by Article I, which predominantly governs the legislative branch, and not Article III, which does the same for the federal judiciary.

Indeed, the only reference to the Chief Justice in the entirety of the Constitution occurs in this context in Article I. …

Judicial Elections: The Case For Accountability, Jack Park

ConLawNOW

In this article, Jack Park defends the use of partisan elections as a method of selecting state court judges. He first frames the debate and describes its participants. The author then discusses the competing values that supporters and opponents of judicial elections advance. Finally, Mr. Park addresses the arguments for and against judicial elections, showing that, while they may not be a perfect method of selecting judges, neither are the alternatives.

Electing Our Judges And Judicial Independence: The Supreme Court's "Triple Whammy", Martin H. Belsky

ConLawNOW

In this article, Martin Belsky makes the case for judicial selection based on merit, as opposed to popular elections. Belsky cites Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company and the recent defeat of three Iowa supreme court justices because of their opinion in a controversial gay marriage case for the proposition that judicial elections can, and do, yield unjust results. Belsky asserts the need for judicial independence, but concludes that this goal is not achievable through elections because of the “triple whammy” of constitutional limitations: (1) the First Amendment protection of the right of judges and judicial candidates to give specific, …