Law Commons^™

Summary Of Berkson V. Lepome, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46, Cayla Witty

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Carrigan V. Comm. On Ethics, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 95, Edward Wynder

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review from a decision of the Nevada Commission on Ethics, determining whether the censure of an elected public officer for alleged voting violations under NRS 281A.420(2)(c) violates the First Amendment.

What Is The Sound Of A Corporation Speaking? “Just Another Voice,” According To The Supreme Court, Linda L. Berger

Scholarly Works

When the Supreme Court overrules itself, and reaches a result different from the conclusions of Congress, the Executive Branch, and more than 20 state legislatures, the Court has the burden of persuasion. Did the five justices in the majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission meet that burden? The author argues that the answer is no, setting aside the question of whether the majority reached the "right" conclusion about the constitutionality of limiting corporate spending in election campaigns. In this essay, the author explains her answer and addresses a related question: did the Citizens United majority observe the rules …

Impeach Brent Benjamin Now!? Giving Adequate Attention To Failings Of Judicial Impartiality, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009), the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote vacated and remanded a decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in which Justice Brent Benjamin cast the deciding vote in favor of Massey, a company run by Don Blankenship, who had provided $3 million in support to Benjamin during his 2004 election campaign.

Despite the unsavory taste of the entire episode, the Court was excessively careful not to criticize Justice Benjamin. Overlooked because of this undue judicial civility and controversy about the constitutional aspects of the decision …

Exposing The Contradiction: An Originalist's Approach To Understanding Why Substantive Due Process Is A Constitutional Misinterpretation, Jason A. Crook

Nevada Law Journal

Few phrases in American jurisprudence have created more of a stir or inspired greater controversy than the seventeen words that comprise the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Drafted by the Reconstruction Congress in the aftermath of the Civil War, these words have been used to strike down maximum-hours legislation, permit the instruction of foreign languages in schools, and even establish the right of minors to purchase contraceptives. In light of its linguistic incongruity and the versatility of its judicial precedents, one could fairly state that the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause has been the subject …

Book Review: "The Lost History Of The Ninth Amendment", Thomas B. Mcaffee

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Constructing The Constitutional Canon: The Metonymic Evolution Of Federalist 10, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

This paper is part of larger symposium convened for the 2010 AALS annual meeting. In it the author adapts some of his earlier constitutional theoretical work to engage the topic of that symposium: the so-called “interpretation/construction distinction.” The author makes two related criticisms of the distinction: (1) it relies on a flawed conception of linguistic meaning, and (2) while these flaws may be harmless in the “easy” cases of interpretation, they are much more problematic in the difficult cases of most concern. Thus, the author doubts the ultimate utility of the distinction as part of a “true and correct” model …

Completing Caperton And Clarifying Common Sense Through Using The Right Standard For Constitutional Judicial Recusal, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a state supreme court decision in which a justice who had received $3 million in campaign support from a litigant cast the deciding vote to relieve the litigant of a $50 million liability. The Court reached this result, one I view as compelled by common sense, through a 5-4 vote, with the dissenters, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, minimizing the danger of biased judging presented by the situation and questioning the practical feasibility of the Court's approach as well as the wisdom of …