Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- African Americans (1)
- Authority (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional amenments (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
-
- Constitutional violations (1)
- Constitutionalism (1)
- Constraint (1)
- Decision making (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Elections (1)
- Electoral processes (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Judicial discipline (1)
- Judicial ethics (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Legitimacy (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Original intent (1)
- Originalism (1)
- Political participation (1)
- Reasoning (1)
- Textualism (1)
- Tradition (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Voting (1)
- Voting Rights Act (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
When Judges Are Accused: An Initial Look At The New Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules, Arthur D. Hellman
When Judges Are Accused: An Initial Look At The New Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules, Arthur D. Hellman
Articles
On March 11, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the administrative policy-making body of the federal judiciary, approved the first set of nationally binding rules for dealing with accusations of misconduct by federal judges. The new rules implement recommendations made by a committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Breyer Committee found that although the judiciary has been doing a very good overall job in handling complaints against judges, the error rate in high-visibility cases is far too high.
The new regulatory regime comes into existence at a time when federal judges have been accused of …
Why Counting Votes Doesn't Add Up: A Response To Cox And Miles' Judging The Voting Rights Act, Ellen D. Katz, Anna Baldwin
Why Counting Votes Doesn't Add Up: A Response To Cox And Miles' Judging The Voting Rights Act, Ellen D. Katz, Anna Baldwin
Articles
In Judging the Voting Rights Act, Professors Adam B. Cox and Thomas J. Miles report that judges are more likely to find liability under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) when they are African American, appointed by a Democratic president, or sit on an appellate panel with a judge who is African American or a Democratic appointee. Cox and Miles posit that their findings “contrast” and “cast doubt” on much of the “conventional wisdom” about the Voting Rights Act, by which they mean the core findings we reported in Documenting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2 …
When Should Original Meanings Matter?, Richard A. Primus
When Should Original Meanings Matter?, Richard A. Primus
Articles
Constitutional theory lacks an account of when each of the familiar sources of authority-text, original meaning, precedent, and so on-should be given weight. The dominant tendency is to regard all sources as potentially applicable in every case. In contrast, this Article proposes that each source of authority is pertinent in some categories of cases but not in others, much as a physical tool is appropriate for some but not all kinds of household tasks. The Article then applies this approach to identify the categories of cases in which original meaning is, or is not, a valid factor in constitutional decisionmaking.