Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 13 of 13

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Apprendi's Limits, R. Craig Green May 2005

Apprendi's Limits, R. Craig Green

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Judicial Confirmation Wars: Ideology And The Battle For The Federal Courts, Sheldon Goldman Mar 2005

Judicial Confirmation Wars: Ideology And The Battle For The Federal Courts, Sheldon Goldman

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Bork Was The Beginning: Constitutional Moralism And The Politics Of Federal Judicial Selection, Gary L. Mcdowell Mar 2005

Bork Was The Beginning: Constitutional Moralism And The Politics Of Federal Judicial Selection, Gary L. Mcdowell

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Judicial Nominations Wars, William P. Marshall Mar 2005

The Judicial Nominations Wars, William P. Marshall

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Observations On The Status And Impact Of The Judicial Confirmation Process, Edith H. Jones Mar 2005

Observations On The Status And Impact Of The Judicial Confirmation Process, Edith H. Jones

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Judicial Selection As . . . Talk Radio, Michael J. Gerhardt Mar 2005

Judicial Selection As . . . Talk Radio, Michael J. Gerhardt

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Lost Jurisprudence Of The Ninth Amendment, Kurt T. Lash Jan 2005

The Lost Jurisprudence Of The Ninth Amendment, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

It is widely assumed that the Ninth Amendment languished in constitutional obscurity until it was resurrected in Griswold v. Connecticut by Justice Arthur Goldberg. In fact, the Ninth Amendment played a significant role in some of the most important constitutional disputes in our nation's history, including the scope of exclusive versus concurrent federal power, the authority of the federal government to regulate slavery, the constitutionality of the New Deal, and the legitimacy and scope of incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. The second of two articles addressing the Lost History of the Ninth Amendment, The Lost …


Bork Was The Beginning: Constitutional Moralism And The Politics Of Judicial Selection, Gary L. Mcdowell Jan 2005

Bork Was The Beginning: Constitutional Moralism And The Politics Of Judicial Selection, Gary L. Mcdowell

Law Faculty Publications

On October 23, 1987, the United States Senate committed what many considered then-and what many still consider today-to be an unforgivable political and constitutional sin. Wielding its power to advise and consent on nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, the upper house voted 58-42 not to confirm Judge Robert H. Bork. The vote, which was the largest margin of defeat in history for a nominee to the Supreme Court, concluded one of the most tumultuous political battles in the history of the republic, a battle that would transform the process of judicial selection for years to come.


Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court:Can Police Arrest Suspects For Withholding Their Names?, John Famum Jan 2005

Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court:Can Police Arrest Suspects For Withholding Their Names?, John Famum

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

Suppose that someone calls the police and alerts them to a crime that has been committed. Using the information provided, the police stop you because you fit the description of the person reported. If the police ask your name, must you give it? The United States Supreme Court believes you must if the state you are in has passed a law requiring you to give your name. In a factual situation very similar to this, the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court that the Nevada law requiring a person to provide his name in …


Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court:Can Police Arrest Suspects For Withholding Their Names?, John Famum Jan 2005

Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court:Can Police Arrest Suspects For Withholding Their Names?, John Famum

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

Suppose that someone calls the police and alerts them to a crime that has been committed. Using the information provided, the police stop you because you fit the description of the person reported. If the police ask your name, must you give it? The United States Supreme Court believes you must if the state you are in has passed a law requiring you to give your name. In a factual situation very similar to this, the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court that the Nevada law requiring a person to provide his name in …


Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witness, Robert P. Mosteller Jan 2005

Crawford V. Washington: Encouraging And Ensuring The Confrontation Of Witness, Robert P. Mosteller

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Groh V. Ramirez: Strengthening The Fourth Amendment Particularity Requirement, Weakening Qualified Immunity, C. Brandon Rash Jan 2005

Groh V. Ramirez: Strengthening The Fourth Amendment Particularity Requirement, Weakening Qualified Immunity, C. Brandon Rash

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Perverse Paradox Of Privacy, Gary L. Mcdowell Jan 2005

The Perverse Paradox Of Privacy, Gary L. Mcdowell

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

The most recent effort of the Supreme Court of the United States to define the judicially created constitutional right to privacy has demonstrated once again why that contrived right poses such a pronounced threat to constitutional self-government. In writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) to overrule a case of only seventeen years' standing that allowed the states to prohibit homosexual sodomy, Justice Anthony Kennedy insisted that the idea of liberty in the Constitution's due process clauses is not limited to protecting individuals form "unwarranted governmental intrusions into a dwelling or other private places" but has "transcendent dimensions" …