Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Making Judicial Recusal More Rigorous, James J. Sample, David Pozen
Making Judicial Recusal More Rigorous, James J. Sample, David Pozen
Faculty Scholarship
The right to an impartial arbiter is the bedrock of due process. Yet litigants in most state courts face judges subject to election and reelection – and therefore to majoritarian political pressures that would appear to undermine the judges' impartiality. This tension has existed for as long as judges have been elected (and, to some extent, for as long as they have been appointed, in which case campaigns often take a less public but equally politicized form).
In recent years, however, this tension has become more acute. Today, state courts around the country increasingly resemble – and are increasingly perceived …
The Best Defense: Why Elected Courts Should Lead Recusal Reform, Deborah Goldberg, James J. Sample, David Pozen
The Best Defense: Why Elected Courts Should Lead Recusal Reform, Deborah Goldberg, James J. Sample, David Pozen
Faculty Scholarship
In recent years, we have seen an escalation of attacks on the independence of the judiciary. Government officials and citizens who have been upset by the substance of judicial decisions are increasingly seeking to rein in the courts by limiting their jurisdiction over controversial matters, soliciting pre-election commitments from judicial candidates, and drafting ballot initiatives with sanctions for judges who make unpopular rulings. Many of these efforts betray ignorance at best, or defiance at worst, of traditional principles of separation of powers and constitutional protections against tyranny of the majority.
The attacks are fueled in part by the growing influence …
Ingenious Arguments Or A Serious Constitutional Problem? A Comment On Professor Epstein's Paper, Philip A. Hamburger
Ingenious Arguments Or A Serious Constitutional Problem? A Comment On Professor Epstein's Paper, Philip A. Hamburger
Faculty Scholarship
In his observations about IRBs, Professor Richard Epstein makes persuasive arguments about the dangerous reach of the IRB laws, but he prefaces this policy analysis with a brief excursus into constitutional law that requires some comment. His view is that the constitutional debate over IRBs arises not so much from a substantial constitutional problem as from “ingenious arguments.” Yet this conclusion rests on mistaken assumptions – both about the IRB laws and about the constitutional objections – and because so much is at stake in the constitutional question, it is necessary to point out the inaccuracies.
The first set of …