Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Voice Of Reason—Why Recent Judicial Interpretations Of The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act’S Restrictions On Habeas Corpus Are Wrong, Judith L. Ritter
The Voice Of Reason—Why Recent Judicial Interpretations Of The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act’S Restrictions On Habeas Corpus Are Wrong, Judith L. Ritter
Judith L Ritter
By filing a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, a prisoner initiates a legal proceeding collateral to the direct appeals process. Federal statutes set forth the procedure and parameters of habeas corpus review. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) first signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, included significant cut-backs in the availability of federal writs of habeas corpus. This was by congressional design. Yet, despite the dire predictions, for most of the first decade of AEDPA’s reign, the door to habeas relief remained open. More recently, however, the Supreme Court reinterpreted a key portion …
The Supreme Judicial Court In Its Fourth Century: Meeting The Challenge Of The "New Constitutional Revolution", Charles H. Baron
The Supreme Judicial Court In Its Fourth Century: Meeting The Challenge Of The "New Constitutional Revolution", Charles H. Baron
Charles H. Baron
In the mid-19th century, when the United States was confronted with daunting changes wrought by its expanding frontiers and the advent of the industrial revolution, its state supreme courts developed the principles of law which facilitated the nation's growth into the great continental power it became. First in influence among these state supreme courts was the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts-whose chief justice, Lemuel Shaw, came widely to be known as "America's greatest magistrate." It is this tradition that the court brings with it as it develops its place in the "new constitutional revolution" presently sweeping our state supreme courts. …
The United States Supreme Court: A Creative Check Of Institutional Misdirection?, Fletcher N. Baldwin
The United States Supreme Court: A Creative Check Of Institutional Misdirection?, Fletcher N. Baldwin
Fletcher N. Baldwin
In the Comment which follows Professor Baldwin presents a brief for an extremely creative Supreme Court. In contrast to those who suggest limiting the function of the Court, either by subject matter or by judicial restraint, the author would have it protect the compact upon which the community is based, by taking an active role to insure that the compensation implied in the compact flows in fact not only to the community but to the individual.
Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In The United States Supreme Court, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In The United States Supreme Court, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
OCL surveys United States Supreme Court cases from 1791 to 1900 for deployment of the phrase stare decisis in opinions and published arguments before the Court. The people, as Madison conceded, make their own precedents; they do this by approving (or not disapproving) official action (in the recent past); in turn, these officials look back to official action taken at time/s more or less remote from the present for their precedents.
Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In United States Supreme Court Opinions, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In United States Supreme Court Opinions, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
OCL surveys United States Supreme Court cases from 1791 to 1900 for deployment of the phrase stare decisis in opinions and published arguments before the Court. The people, as Madison conceded, make their own precedents by approving (prior) official action taken by current officials as a foundation for resolving issues-of-the-day.