Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Affordable Care Act (1)
- Balls and Strikes (1)
- Baseball (1)
- Best light (1)
- Camreta v. Greene (1)
-
- Categorical (1)
- Confirmation (1)
- Consequential (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Context (1)
- Decisionmaking (1)
- Decisions (1)
- Due process (1)
- Education (1)
- External actors (1)
- Federal judge (1)
- Filibuster (1)
- Fit (1)
- Gould (1)
- Hypertext (1)
- Hypothetical (1)
- Integrity (1)
- Interest groups (1)
- Judicial Discretion (1)
- Judicial appointments (1)
- Judiciary Committee (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Law and society (1)
- Legal Reasoning (1)
- Legal history (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
To “Advice And C̶O̶N̶S̶E̶N̶T̶Delay”: The Role Of Interest Groups In The Confirmation Of Judges To The Federal Courts Of Appeal, Donald E. Campbell
To “Advice And C̶O̶N̶S̶E̶N̶T̶Delay”: The Role Of Interest Groups In The Confirmation Of Judges To The Federal Courts Of Appeal, Donald E. Campbell
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
Political and partisan battles over nominees to the federal courts of appeal have reached unprecedented levels. This article considers the reasons for this change in the process. Using evidence from law and political science, this article proposes that current confirmation struggles are greatly influenced by increased involvement of interest groups in the process. The article tests the role of interest groups through an in-depth examination of George W. Bush’s nomination of Leslie H. Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Utilizing the Southwick case study, the article provides evidence of how interest groups impact the confirmation process by designating …
The Art Of Legal Reasoning And The Angst Of Judging: Of Balls, Strikes, And Moments Of Truth, Timothy P. Terrell
The Art Of Legal Reasoning And The Angst Of Judging: Of Balls, Strikes, And Moments Of Truth, Timothy P. Terrell
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
An essay of only five short paragraphs published several years ago by the noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould about a controversial call by baseball umpire Babe Pinelli provides all the foundation necessary for a thorough investigation of the phenomenon of legal reasoning. The present article contrasts Gould’s analysis of a “strike” with the comment by then-Judge John Roberts at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings that he just wanted to “call [the] balls and strikes,” and through this exchange develops a new approach toward identifying—and teaching—the basic elements of sophisticated legal thinking. This article divides legal reasoning into four interrelated …
May It Please The Court: Questions About Policy At Oral Argument, Cynthia K. Conlon, Julie M. Karaba
May It Please The Court: Questions About Policy At Oral Argument, Cynthia K. Conlon, Julie M. Karaba
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
This Article examines the questions that Supreme Court Justices ask during oral argument. The authors content-coded questions asked in fifty-three cases argued during the October 2009, 2010, and 2011 terms—a total of 5,115 questions. They found that the Justices vary significantly in the extent to which they ask about different aspects of a case, including threshold issues, precedent, facts, external actors, legal argument, and policy. They also found that the Justices were more likely to ask policy-oriented questions in education cases than in constitutional cases that did not arise in a school setting. The authors included a case study of …
Originalism And Loving V. Virginia, Steven G. Calabresi, Andrea Matthews
Originalism And Loving V. Virginia, Steven G. Calabresi, Andrea Matthews
Faculty Working Papers
This article makes an originalist argument in defense of the Supreme Court's holding in Loving v. Virginia that antimiscegenation laws are unconstitutional. This article builds on past work by Professor Michael McConnell defending Brown v. Board of Education on originalist grounds and by Professor Calabresi defending strict scrutiny for gender classifications on originalist grounds. Professor Calabresi's work in this area was defended and praise recently by Slate magazine online. The article shows that Loving v. Virginia is defensible using the public meaning originalism advocated for by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. This article shows that the issue in Loving …