Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (4)
- Engagement (3)
- Housing rights (3)
- Socioeconomic rights (3)
- South African Constitutional Court (3)
-
- Administrative law (2)
- Agency review (2)
- Cleveland (2)
- Comparative law (2)
- Congress (2)
- Courts (2)
- Cuyahoga county (2)
- Equal protection doctrine (2)
- Foreclosure (2)
- Healthcare (2)
- Judicial power (2)
- Judicial review (2)
- Judiciary (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Olivia Road (2)
- Scalia (2)
- "insolubly ambiguous" standard (1)
- Affirmative action (1)
- Alternative dispute resolution (1)
- American Airlines (1)
- American Express (1)
- Amicus (1)
- Antitrust (1)
- Antonin Scalia (1)
- Appellate counsel (1)
- Publication Year
Articles 31 - 32 of 32
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Law/Politics Distinction, The French Conseil Constitutionnel, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Michael H. Davis
The Law/Politics Distinction, The French Conseil Constitutionnel, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Michael H. Davis
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
A dispute burns across the landscape of French constitutional law regarding the juridical nature of the French constitutional "Supreme Court", the Conseil constitutionnel: is it a court? Both French and American scholars have claimed that, despite superficial similarities between the U.S. Supreme Court and the French Conseil constitutionnel, the American system of judicial review "can have no counterpart in the French system", that French legal and political theory is inconstistent with an effective supreme court, that there is "no possibility" that the French and American systems could surmount this "major difference", and that the Conseil is simply not a "true …
The Role Of Oral Argument At The U.S. Supreme Court-- A View From The Podium, Arthur R. Landever
The Role Of Oral Argument At The U.S. Supreme Court-- A View From The Podium, Arthur R. Landever
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This article has offered survey results of the attitudes of lawyers who have made oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Respondents generally approve of the current process, find the justices relatively well prepared, and the questions generally useful. At the same time, they express some uncertainty about whether the oral argument phase had any impact in their particular cases. By and large, they take as a given, the important function of oral argument as a supplement to the written brief.