Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Appearance of impartiality (1)
- Bias (1)
- Caperton v. Massey (1)
- Central staff clerks (1)
- Congressional control (1)
-
- Constitutional law (1)
- David Hackett Souter (1)
- Disqualification (1)
- Due process (1)
- Federal Civil Rules (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Judge's opinions (1)
- Judges (1)
- Judicial elections (1)
- Judicial ethics (1)
- Judicial independence (1)
- Law (1)
- Law clerks (1)
- Legal ethics (1)
- Professional Responsibility (1)
- Public Opinion (1)
- Recusal (1)
- Reporters of decisions (1)
- Roberts court (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- Social Status (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Supreme Court Decisions (1)
- Supreme court (1)
- United States v. Klein (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Justice Souter And The Civil Rules, Scott Dodson
Justice Souter And The Civil Rules, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
Justice Souter’s recent retirement from the Court after nearly twenty years presents a unique opportunity to comment on his legacy. No doubt others will eulogize or castigate him for his membership in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey troika, but there is much more to the man and his jurisprudence. Indeed, the danger is that Justice Souter will be pigeonholed into one opinion, an opinion that he wrote early in his Supreme Court career, to the detriment of understanding the complex justice that he was. And what it finds is a justice deeply committed to the fair treatment of the litigants …
Why The Supreme Court Cares About Elites, Not The American People, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Why The Supreme Court Cares About Elites, Not The American People, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
Supreme Court Justices care more about the views of academics, journalists, and other elites than they do about public opinion. This is true of nearly all Justices and is especially true of swing Justices, who often cast the critical votes in the Court’s most visible decisions. In this Article, we will explain why we think this is so and, in so doing, challenge both the dominant political science models of judicial behavior and the significant work of Barry Friedman, Jeffrey Rosen, and others who link Supreme Court decision making to public opinion.
Statutory Interpretation In The Roberts Court's First Era: An Empirical And Doctrinal Analysis, Anita S. Krishnakumar
Statutory Interpretation In The Roberts Court's First Era: An Empirical And Doctrinal Analysis, Anita S. Krishnakumar
Faculty Publications
This Article examines the Roberts Court's statutory cases from its 2005-2008 Terms, beginning with cases decided after January 31, 2006, when Justice Alito joined the Court, and concluding with cases decided on June 29, 2009, when Justice Souter retired. The Article's approach is both empirical and doctrinal, in that it (1) presents descriptive statistics illustrating the Court's and individual Justices' rates of reliance on fourteen different tools of statutory construction, and (2) engages in doctrinal analysis of the Court's statutory cases, highlighting discernable patterns in the individual Justices' interpretive approaches. The Article makes two significant contributions to the field of …
Judges And Their Editors, Douglas E. Abrams
Judges And Their Editors, Douglas E. Abrams
Faculty Publications
This essay discusses the roles of personal law clerks, central staff clerks, and Reporters of Decisions in editing judges’ opinions at the drafting stage. “The overarching lesson [is] that by submerging pride of authorship during an opinion’s gestation and by weighing editorial input with an open mind, judges secure in their craft advance the interests of justice.” The essay also discusses the constraints imposed by the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct on the circle of persons a judge may consult without giving the parties advance notice. The essay is adapted from Prof. Abrams’ address to the international meeting of …
The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman
The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman
Faculty Publications
The Reconstruction-era case of United States v. Klein remains the object of a “cult” among commentators and advocates, who see it as a powerful separation of powers precedent. In fact, Klein is a myth—actually two related myths. One is that it is opaque and meaninglessly indeterminate because, given its confusing and disjointed language, its precise doctrinal contours are indecipherable; the other is that Klein is vigorous precedent, likely to be used by a court to invalidate likely federal legislation. Close analysis of Klein, its progeny, and past scholarship uncovers three identifiable core limitations on congressional control over the workings of …
Understanding Caperton: Judicial Disqualification Under The Due Process Clause, Dmitry Bam
Understanding Caperton: Judicial Disqualification Under The Due Process Clause, Dmitry Bam
Faculty Publications
It is virtually impossible to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. without hearing some variant of the following response: “I can’t believe it was as close as it was.” And it does not matter whether you are chatting with your next-door neighbor who had never thought about judicial ethics in his life or discussing the case with a judicial-recusal expert. Nearly everyone seems to agree: Caperton was an “easy” case and that four justices dissented is an indication that there is something terribly wrong. Not only has Caperton elevated the issue of judicial impartiality …