Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Employment Division v. Smith (5)
- Roe v. Wade (5)
- The Federalist No. 78 (3)
- Brown v. Board of Education (2)
- Civil Rights Act (2)
-
- Clarence Thomas (2)
- David Souter (2)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman (2)
- Marbury v. Madison (2)
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- A Collection of Essays on the Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- A Social-Conservative Comment on the New Supreme Court (1)
- AAUW (1)
- AFSCME v. State of Washington (1)
- Advice and Consent: Ensuring Judicial Freedom (1)
- Afterword: Saving the Honorable Court: Assessing the Proper Role of the Modern Supreme Court (1)
- Alexander Hamilton (1)
- American Association of University Woman (1)
- Ammons v. Baldwin (1)
- Antonin Scalia (1)
- Balancing the Federal Judiciary (1)
- Bill of Rights (1)
- Blood Bank and Blood Products Manufacturer Liability in Transfusion-Related AIDS Cases (1)
- Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1)
- Bradley v. Fisher (1)
- Butz v. Economou (1)
- Candelaria v. Coughlin (1)
- City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart (1)
- Civil Rights Restoration Act (1)
Articles 1 - 17 of 17
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Judiciary: Know Thy Place, Thomas L. Jipping
Judiciary: Know Thy Place, Thomas L. Jipping
University of Richmond Law Review
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No.78 that the judiciary "has no influence over ... the purse."' Yet in Missouri v. Jenkins, the Supreme Court approved indirect judicial taxation. Hamilton wrote that the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous" and "beyond comparison the weakest" branch of government. Yet in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court created out of nothing a right to choose abortion, invalidated the abortion laws of all fifty states developed over more than a century, and shut millions of Americans out of the process of developing public policy on this important political issue. Hamilton wrote that …
Mireles V. Waco: The Supreme Court Prescribes The Bitter Pill Of Judicial Immunity And Summary Reversal, Linwood I. Rogers
Mireles V. Waco: The Supreme Court Prescribes The Bitter Pill Of Judicial Immunity And Summary Reversal, Linwood I. Rogers
University of Richmond Law Review
This language opened Justice Douglas' stinging dissent in the 1967 United States Supreme Court decision of Pierson v. Ray, holding that section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act did not abolish the common law doctrine of judicial immunity. Eleven years later, the Court expanded and redefined the scope of the doctrine of judicial immunity in Stump v. Sparkman. The Stump Court attached immunity to actions of a judicial nature taken by a judge in his judicial capacity where such actions were not taken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. But rather than clarifying the doctrine of judicial immunity, the …
The Supreme Court: Final Arbiter Of Our Nation's Legal Disputes, Strom Thurmond
The Supreme Court: Final Arbiter Of Our Nation's Legal Disputes, Strom Thurmond
University of Richmond Law Review
"I have had the opportunity to review twenty-three Supreme Court nominations during my thirty-seven years in the Senate."
In Defense Of A Principled Judiciary, Edward E. Mcateer
In Defense Of A Principled Judiciary, Edward E. Mcateer
University of Richmond Law Review
For decades, the justices themselves undermined the honor which ought to be afforded the third branch of the federal government as they regularly exceeded the proper, limited but vitally important role they ought to play. October term after October term, the justices acted as a permanent constitutional convention, disrupting legislative accommodations and settled precedent with regularity.
Hudson V. Mcmillian And Prisoners' Rights In The 1990s: Is The Supreme Court Now More Responsive To "Contemporaneous Standards Of Decency"?, L. Allan Parrott Jr.
Hudson V. Mcmillian And Prisoners' Rights In The 1990s: Is The Supreme Court Now More Responsive To "Contemporaneous Standards Of Decency"?, L. Allan Parrott Jr.
University of Richmond Law Review
The Eighth Amendment prohibits, among other things, "cruel and unusual punishment." In the prison context, the United States Supreme Court historically applied this clause solely to protect prisoners from unfair sentences. It was not until 1976, 185 years after the adoption of the Eighth Amendment that the Supreme Court found cruel and unusual punishment protections to apply to events or conditions experienced by prisoners during incarceration. In Estelle v. Gamble, the Court granted Eighth Amendment protections to a prisoner alleging deprivations during imprisonment. After 1976, the Court seemed to move away from the "hands-off' doctrine, which traditionally granted deference to …
University Of Richmond Law Review
University Of Richmond Law Review
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Role Of The Modern Supreme Court, Ronald D. Rotunda
The Role Of The Modern Supreme Court, Ronald D. Rotunda
University of Richmond Law Review
In The FederalistNo. 78, Alexander Hamilton examined the judicial department. He relied on that branch to safeguard the limitations drafted into the Constitution. While the judiciary is "incontestably" and "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power," he conceded, nonetheless, the constitutional limitations on legislative excess "can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void."
Advice And Consent: Ensuring Judicial Freedom, Patrick J. Leahy
Advice And Consent: Ensuring Judicial Freedom, Patrick J. Leahy
University of Richmond Law Review
Throughout this nation's history, Americans have turned to the Supreme Court to protect their rights against excesses of the legislative and executive branches. To protect this crucial role of the Court, the Framers realized that neither the executive nor the legislature should have the power to cast the Court in its own image. To prevent this usurpation of one branch by another, the Framers wisely required the President to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate in making appointments to the Supreme Court.
The Role Of The Supreme Court, Charles E. Grassley
The Role Of The Supreme Court, Charles E. Grassley
University of Richmond Law Review
Many people think of the Supreme Court exclusively as a place to safeguard individual rights. Without question, this is an important duty of the Court. However, the Supreme Court serves many other institutional functions as well. These crucial responsibilities are often overlooked, not only by the public, but by those who closely watch the Supreme Court at work.
The Supreme Court As A Political Institution, Benjamin L. Hooks
The Supreme Court As A Political Institution, Benjamin L. Hooks
University of Richmond Law Review
The august Supreme Court of the United States is a political institution and has been virtually from the beginning. That today's Court finds itself at the center of intense ideological and political debate should surprise few serious students of American political and constitutional history.
The Supreme Court's Role: Guarantor Of Individual And Minority Group Rights, Nadine Strossen
The Supreme Court's Role: Guarantor Of Individual And Minority Group Rights, Nadine Strossen
University of Richmond Law Review
We have just celebrated the Bicentennial of the United States Bill of Rights, a marvelous document that not only has been used to secure a broad range of freedoms for many people in this country, but also has inspired and served as a model for liberty-loving peoples the world over. However, the freedoms enunciated in the Bill of Rights - as well as in other Constitutional provisions - are not self-enforcing.
Conservative Supreme Court: Its Impact On Traditional Values, Donald E. Wildman, Benjamin W. Bull
Conservative Supreme Court: Its Impact On Traditional Values, Donald E. Wildman, Benjamin W. Bull
University of Richmond Law Review
Most court watchers agree that the changing composition of the Supreme Court will ineluctably favor the interests of traditional values organizations like the American Family Association. The next decade will surely see the Court return to a more balanced approach in line with the preservation of family values. Certainly some will characterize the new Court as more conservative. To the extent that it will emphasize core principles in the Constitution as the bedrock from which it must proceed, it will be conservative. Yet this is simply a return of the Court to its intended function: interpretation and application of law …
The Supreme Court: New Hope For The Restoration Of Federalism, Beverly Lahaye, Ellen O. Smith
The Supreme Court: New Hope For The Restoration Of Federalism, Beverly Lahaye, Ellen O. Smith
University of Richmond Law Review
The recent philosdphical shift of the Supreme Court toward a more restrained or "conservative" approach to constitutional adjudication brings with it hope for the revitalization of federalism as a constitutional and political principle.
Balancing The Federal Judiciary, Anne Bryant
Balancing The Federal Judiciary, Anne Bryant
University of Richmond Law Review
Since the American Association of University Women first published the associational brief "Balancing the Federal Judiciary" in 1988, two new Associate Justices (David Souter and Clarence Thomas) have joined the Supreme Court. The Court has continued to chip away at the rights of women and minorities, with damaging decisions in areas such as reproductive rights (e.g., Webster v. Reproductive Health Services) and employment discrimination(e.g., Wards Cove Packing Company v. Atonio). With a conservative majority in place on the Supreme Court until well into the next century and Reagan and Bush appointees comprising more than half of the nation's federal judges, …
Reagan, Bush And The Supreme Court, Arthur J. Kropp
Reagan, Bush And The Supreme Court, Arthur J. Kropp
University of Richmond Law Review
What may be the most significant achievement of the Reagan-Bush years is one we have only begun to appreciate: the radical revolution in the federal courts. After nearly three terms of conservative presidents bent on remaking the federal judiciary, the courts have been transformed. They are far more conservative, and, despite Administration rhetoric to the contrary, decidedly more activist.
A Social-Conservative Comment On The New Supreme Court, Gary L. Bauer
A Social-Conservative Comment On The New Supreme Court, Gary L. Bauer
University of Richmond Law Review
I recall seeing a column, not long ago, which referred to the Supreme Court as increasingly "a right-wing playground." Liberal groups may be able to raise funds off this impression, but if conservatives rely on it, they are in for a rude awakening when the gavel falls.
Saving The Honorable Court: Assessing The Proper Role Of The Modern Supreme Court, Michael Allan Wolf
Saving The Honorable Court: Assessing The Proper Role Of The Modern Supreme Court, Michael Allan Wolf
University of Richmond Law Review
There are few greater delights in legal scholarship than the opportunity to have the last word in a symposium featuring distinguished - and dramatically differing - viewpoints. The thirteen contributions that precede this afterword offer a provocative and representative set of reactions to the ongoing debate over the role of the Supreme Court in the American polity. This debate is by no means new, or even middle-aged. The struggle over the confirmation of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is but the latest in a long line of pressure points in American constitutional history - events such as controversial Supreme Court decisions, …