Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Limited Defense Of (At Least Some Of) The Umpire Analogy, Michael P. Allen
A Limited Defense Of (At Least Some Of) The Umpire Analogy, Michael P. Allen
Seattle University Law Review
This Essay provides at least a limited defense of some parts of the umpire analogy and ultimately suggests that this analogy may tell us something important about the more general role of courts in the United States. This Essay proceeds in four parts. Part II explores in more depth what those making the umpire analogy appear to mean. At its heart, the analogy principally has been used to address the substantive decision making of judges. This Part will explain that there is more to the analogy than such a narrow decisional focus suggests. Part III builds on Part II. It …
Reluctant Judicial Factfinding: When Minimalism And Judicial Modesty Go Too Far, Scott A. Moss
Reluctant Judicial Factfinding: When Minimalism And Judicial Modesty Go Too Far, Scott A. Moss
Seattle University Law Review
Whatever the merits of minimalism in constitutional adjudication, this Essay argues that in another aspect of federal adjudication--what this Essay terms “reluctant judicial factfinding”--we already have too much minimalism. In certain areas of law, courts are quite reluctant to engage in close scrutiny of critically important facts, instead falling back on policies that avoid such factfinding. Parts II, III, and IV discuss each of these three areas of reluctant judicial factfinding. Then, Part V offers some thoughts as to possible causes of this reluctance to undertake factual inquiries that statutes, rules, and Supreme Court precedent instruct district and appellate courts …
Book Review: A Political Scientist Examines The Washington Supreme Court A Century Of Judging By Charles H. Sheldon, Deborah Dowd
Book Review: A Political Scientist Examines The Washington Supreme Court A Century Of Judging By Charles H. Sheldon, Deborah Dowd
Seattle University Law Review
Charles H. Sheldon asks two major questions in his recent book, A Century of Judging. In answering these questions, Sheldon focuses on the Washington Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the information gathered and analyzed is of more interest to political scientists or historians than to practicing lawyers. Lawyers should be knowledgeable about the judges before whom they may argue a case. Yet, the methodology and data utilized in A Century of Judging do not create a cohesive picture of the supreme court justices, either collectively or individually. The book compiles useful information; however, the answers to the two questions posed and …