Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
"Was It Something I Said?": Losing The Majority On The Modern Supreme Court Of Canada, 1984-2011, Peter J. Mccormick
"Was It Something I Said?": Losing The Majority On The Modern Supreme Court Of Canada, 1984-2011, Peter J. Mccormick
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
Appeal court judges do not just vote and run; they vote and then they explain, at length, why theirs is the most reasonable position. Since the core of explanation is persuasion, this means that between the initial conference vote and the final decision, some of the judges sometimes change their minds; and this in turn means that sometimes an initial majority becomes a minority and vice versa, something which often leaves clear footprints in the written record. This paper demonstrates that this happens more often than we might think—some 255 times for the last three Chief Justiceships, or roughly once …
The Rule Of Law For Judges, Thomas M. Reavley
The Rule Of Law For Judges, Thomas M. Reavley
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
"Of A Judiciary Nature": Observations On Chief Justice's First Opinions, Diane S. Sykes
"Of A Judiciary Nature": Observations On Chief Justice's First Opinions, Diane S. Sykes
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Roberts Court & Executive Power, Jeffrey Rosen
The Roberts Court & Executive Power, Jeffrey Rosen
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Alito/O'Connor Switch, Joan Biskupic
The Inaugural William French Smith Memorial Lecture: A Look At Supreme Court Advocacy With Justice Samuel Alito, Samuel A. Alito Jr, Douglas W. Kmiec, Carter G. Phillips, Kenneth W. Starr
The Inaugural William French Smith Memorial Lecture: A Look At Supreme Court Advocacy With Justice Samuel Alito, Samuel A. Alito Jr, Douglas W. Kmiec, Carter G. Phillips, Kenneth W. Starr
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Law, Higher Law, And Human Making, William S. Brewbaker Iii
Law, Higher Law, And Human Making, William S. Brewbaker Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
This paper is a preliminary investigation of what Christian theology might teach us about the nature of human creative activity and its relationship to judging and lawmaking. Rather than attempt to survey and synthesize multiple theological accounts of human making, it focuses on just one - Dorothy Sayers' The Mind of the Maker. The foundational analogy that drives Sayers' account of human creativity is the relation between God's creative activity and that of human beings made in his image. Sayers argues that human creative activity has a Trinitarian structure, which she identifies as Idea, Energy and Power. These three elements …
Angry Judges, Terry A. Maroney
Angry Judges, Terry A. Maroney
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Judges get angry. Law, however, is of two minds as to whether they should; more importantly, it is of two minds as to whether judges’ anger should influence their behavior and decision making. On the one hand, anger is the quintessentially judicial emotion. It involves appraisal of wrongdoing, attribution of blame, and assignment of punishment — precisely what we ask of judges. On the other, anger is associated with aggression, impulsivity, and irrationality. Aristotle, through his concept of virtue, proposed reconciling this conflict by asking whether a person is angry at the right people, for the right reasons, and in …
The Constitutionality Of Federal Jurisdiction-Stripping Legislation And The History Of State Judicial Selection And Tenure, Brian T. Fitzpatrick
The Constitutionality Of Federal Jurisdiction-Stripping Legislation And The History Of State Judicial Selection And Tenure, Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Few questions in the field of Federal Courts have captivated scholars like the question of whether Congress can simultaneously divest both lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear federal constitutional claims and thereby leave those claims to be litigated in state courts alone. Such a divestiture is known today as “jurisdiction stripping,” and, despite literally decades of scholarship on the subject, scholars have largely been unable to reconcile two widely held views: jurisdiction stripping should be unconstitutional because it deprives constitutional rights of adjudication by independent judges and jurisdiction stripping is nonetheless perfectly consistent with …