Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Expanding The Federal Common Law?: From Nomos & Physis And Beyond, Sam Kalen
Expanding The Federal Common Law?: From Nomos & Physis And Beyond, Sam Kalen
Sam Kalen Mr.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in AEP v. Connecticut, as well as a prominent Seventh Circuit case last year, reflect an emerging effort to test the federal judiciary’s willingness to expand the federal common law to include claims for interstate pollution. There is an assumption, including by the Supreme Court, that a federal common law for public nuisance exists, and that the pressing question is whether to expand that common law. Building on existing scholarship and a more thorough review of the cases than has occurred in the past, this article attempts to prompt a searching dialogue about the jurisprudential …
Life, Death & The God Complex: The Effectiveness Of Incorporating Religion-Based Arguments Into The Pro-Choice Perspective On Abortion, Stacy A. Scaldo
Life, Death & The God Complex: The Effectiveness Of Incorporating Religion-Based Arguments Into The Pro-Choice Perspective On Abortion, Stacy A. Scaldo
Stacy A Scaldo
While speaking on the issue of healthcare in August of 2009, President Barrack Obama told a meeting of Jewish rabbis, “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.” While the President’s message was expressly targeting choices in healthcare and end of life decisions, the statement is representative of a shift in the public rhetoric reflective of all matters concerning life - including abortion. This, indeed, would be a remarkable change in both express policy and argument identification – one that appears to be a new weapon in the arsenal of those who identify themselves with the pro-choice movement. …
Religious Arguments And The United States Supreme Court: A Review Of Amicus Curiae Briefs Filed By Religious Organizations, Andrew S. Mansfield
Religious Arguments And The United States Supreme Court: A Review Of Amicus Curiae Briefs Filed By Religious Organizations, Andrew S. Mansfield
Andrew S Mansfield
This paper analyzes forty-five amicus curiae briefs filed by religious organizations with the Supreme Court since Brown v. Board of Education, 348 U.S. 886, decided in 1954, through the decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320, rendered in 2006. The forty-five amicus curiae briefs were filed in nineteen cases and concern issues that are often identified as “moral.” Analysis of the amicus curiae briefs filed with the Supreme Court by religious organizations provides at least three crucial insights. First, the legal arguments presented by religious organizations, as reflected in amicus curiae briefs filed with the Supreme Court, provide …