Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Pepperdine University (44)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (19)
- SelectedWorks (13)
- Selected Works (10)
- University of Richmond (7)
-
- Georgetown University Law Center (6)
- University of Michigan Law School (4)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (4)
- Duke Law (3)
- Fordham Law School (2)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (2)
- Washington University in St. Louis (2)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Barry University School of Law (1)
- Brigham Young University Law School (1)
- California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (1)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Columbia Law School (1)
- Cornell University Law School (1)
- Golden Gate University School of Law (1)
- SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah (1)
- St. John's University School of Law (1)
- Syracuse University (1)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (1)
- UIC School of Law (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Colorado Law School (1)
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (33)
- United States Supreme Court (17)
- Judges (16)
- Courts (11)
- Civil Procedure (10)
-
- Constitutional law (7)
- Dispute Resolution (7)
- Litigation (7)
- Attorney (6)
- Judicial opinions (6)
- Discretion (5)
- Federal courts (5)
- International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) (5)
- Judge (5)
- Judicial Reform (5)
- Lawyer (5)
- Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution (5)
- Court (4)
- Due process (4)
- Judicial decisionmaking (4)
- Judicial process (4)
- Statistics (4)
- United States (4)
- Administrative law (3)
- Buck v. Bell (3)
- Case (3)
- Civil Rights (3)
- Civil rights (3)
- Conflictos intrapartidistas (3)
- Constitutional Law (3)
- Publication
-
- Pepperdine Law Review (32)
- Nevada Law Journal (18)
- Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal (12)
- Faculty Scholarship (8)
- University of Richmond Law Review (5)
-
- Articles (4)
- Michele Carducci Prof. (4)
- Siyuan CHEN (4)
- All Faculty Scholarship (3)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (3)
- Javier Martín Reyes (3)
- Faculty Publications (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Law Faculty Publications (2)
- Scholarly Works (2)
- Scholarship@WashULaw (2)
- Supreme Court Overviews (2)
- Valerie P. Hans (2)
- Working Paper Series (2)
- A Life of Contributions for All Time: Symposium in Honor of David H. Getches (April 26-27) (1)
- American Indian Law Review (1)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (1)
- BYU Law Review (1)
- California Courts and the Practice of Law (1)
- Continuing Education (CAPSTONE) (1)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Curtis E.A. Karnow (1)
- Dharmendra Chatur (1)
- Faculty Works (1)
- Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 121 - 143 of 143
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Justifying Diversity In The Federal Judiciary, Carl W. Tobias
Justifying Diversity In The Federal Judiciary, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
This Essay thus scrutinizes Obama’s judicial selection effort, which confirms many ideas that Scherer espouses while showing how political deficiencies in the modern selection process erode diversity and legitimacy, and perhaps Scherer’s provocative solution. This response ultimately discusses some promising measures beyond Scherer’s recommendation that could enhance diversity and legitimacy in light of the threat that politicization poses
Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2012 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2012 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
Supreme Court Overviews
No abstract provided.
The Worst Supreme Court Case Ever? Identifying, Assessing, And Exploring Low Moments Of The High Court, Jeffrey W. Stempel
The Worst Supreme Court Case Ever? Identifying, Assessing, And Exploring Low Moments Of The High Court, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Legal Affinities: Explorations In The Legal Form Of Thought, Patrick Mckinley Brennan
Legal Affinities: Explorations In The Legal Form Of Thought, Patrick Mckinley Brennan
Working Paper Series
This is my Introduction to Legal Affinities: Explorations in the Legal Form of Thought (forthcoming 2012) (co-edited with H. Jefferson Powell and Jack Sammons), a volume of essays dedicated to exploring the work of Joseph Vining. The Introduction introduces Vining’s phenomenology of law and surveys the themes and topics developed by the volume’s eight authors: Joseph Vining, Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., Rev. John McCausland, H. Jefferson Powell, Jack Sammons, Steve Smith, James Boyd White, and Patrick Brennan.
Introduction, Paul Finkelman
Sex On The Bench: Do Women Judges Matter To The Legitimacy Of International Courts?, Nienke Grossman
Sex On The Bench: Do Women Judges Matter To The Legitimacy Of International Courts?, Nienke Grossman
All Faculty Scholarship
This article seeks to advance our understanding of international courts' legitimacy and its relationship to who sits on the bench. It asks whether we should care that few women sit on international court benches. After providing statistics on women's participation on eleven of the world's most important courts and tribunals, the article argues that under-representation of one sex affects normative legitimacy because it endangers impartiality and introduces bias when men and women approach judging differently. Even if men and women do not think differently, a sex un-representative bench harms sociological legitimacy for constituencies who believe they do nonetheless. For groups …
Beyond Saints And Sinners: Discretion And The Need For New Narratives In The U.S. Immigration System, Elizabeth Keyes
Beyond Saints And Sinners: Discretion And The Need For New Narratives In The U.S. Immigration System, Elizabeth Keyes
All Faculty Scholarship
Beyond Saints and Sinners examines the forces affecting the exercise of discretion in American immigration courts, and argues that in this present age of immigration anxiety, the same facts that place an individual in deportation proceedings may constitute the reasons a judge will, relying on discretion, deny them relief for which they are otherwise eligible. The article explores the polarized narratives told about "good" and "bad" immigrants, the exceptionally difficult task of adjudicating in overburdened immigration courts, and the ways in which these polarized narratives interact with psychological short-cuts, or heuristics, that affect judicial exercises of discretion. After engaging in …
Judicial Engagement Through The Lens Of Lee Optical, Randy E. Barnett
Judicial Engagement Through The Lens Of Lee Optical, Randy E. Barnett
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Keynote remarks at the symposium on "Judicial Engagement and the Role of Judges in Enforcing the Constitution", delivered on March 22, 2012 at the George Mason University School of Law.
Does Ideology Matter In Bankruptcy? Voting Behavior On The Courts Of Appeals, Rafael I. Pardo, Jonathan Remy Nash
Does Ideology Matter In Bankruptcy? Voting Behavior On The Courts Of Appeals, Rafael I. Pardo, Jonathan Remy Nash
Scholarship@WashULaw
This Article empirically examines the question of whether courts of appeals judges cast ideological votes in the context of bankruptcy. The empirical study is unique insofar as it is the first to specifically examine the voting behavior of circuit court judges in bankruptcy cases. More importantly, it focuses on a particular type of dispute that arises in bankruptcy - debt-dischargeability determinations. The study implements this focused approach in order to reduce heterogeneity in result. We find, contrary to our hypotheses, no evidence that circuit court judges engage in ideological voting in bankruptcy cases. We do find, however, non-ideological factors - …
A Dynamic Model Of Doctrinal Choice, Scott Baker, Pauline Kim
A Dynamic Model Of Doctrinal Choice, Scott Baker, Pauline Kim
Scholarship@WashULaw
This paper develops a repeated game model of the choice of doctrinal form by a higher court. Doctrine can take any point along a continuum from more determinate, rule-like legal commands to more flexible, standard-like directives. In deciding a case, the Supreme Court not only decides on a substantive outcome, but also chooses where on this continuum to set the doctrine. The lower court then applies the legal command to future cases. In doing so, it may wish to take into account new information, but the cost of doing so varies with the form of the legal doctrine. The model …
The Eleventh Annual Albert A. Destefano Lecture On Corporate, Securities & Financial Law At The Fordham Corporate Law Center: Are Federal Judges Competent? Dilettantes In An Age Of Economic Expertise, The Honorable Jed Rakoff
The Eleventh Annual Albert A. Destefano Lecture On Corporate, Securities & Financial Law At The Fordham Corporate Law Center: Are Federal Judges Competent? Dilettantes In An Age Of Economic Expertise, The Honorable Jed Rakoff
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law
The title of my little talk here tonight is “Are
Federal Judges Competent?” This naturally raises the question of whether I am competent to answer that question. I put this question to myself, and, after careful consideration of both sides of the argument, concluded that I am competent to determine whether I am competent. As H. L. Mencken once said, “A judge is a law student who grades his own exams.”
Elected Judges And Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Ethan J. Leib
Elected Judges And Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Ethan J. Leib
Faculty Scholarship
This Article considers whether differences in methods of judicial selection should influence how judges approach statutory interpretation. Courts and scholars have not given this question much sustained attention, but most would probably embrace the “unified model,” according to which appointed judges (such as federal judges) and elected judges (such as many state judges) are supposed to approach statutory text in identical ways. There is much to be said for the unified model—and we offer the first systematic defense of it. But the Article also attempts to make the best case for the more controversial but also plausible contrary view: that …
Decarceration Courts: Possibilities And Perils Of A Shifting Criminal Law, Allegra M. Mcleod
Decarceration Courts: Possibilities And Perils Of A Shifting Criminal Law, Allegra M. Mcleod
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
A widely decried crisis confronts U.S. criminal law. Jails and prisons are overcrowded and violence plagued. Additional causes for alarm include the rate of increase of incarcerated populations, their historically and internationally unprecedented size, their racial disproportionality, and exorbitant associated costs. Although disagreement remains over the precise degree by which incarceration ought to be reduced, there is a growing consensus that some measure of decarceration is desirable.
With hopes of reducing reliance on conventional criminal supervision and incarceration, specialized criminal courts proliferated dramatically over the past two decades. There are approximately 3,000 specialized criminal courts in the United States, including …
The Anti-Messiness Principle In Statutory Interpretation, Anita S. Krishnakumar
The Anti-Messiness Principle In Statutory Interpretation, Anita S. Krishnakumar
Faculty Publications
Many of the Supreme Court's statutory interpretation opinions reflect a juisprudential aversion to interpreting statutes in a manner that will prove "messy" for implementing courts to administer. Yet the practice of construing statutes to avoid "messiness" has gone largely unnoticed in the statutory interpretation literature. This Article seeks to illuminate the Court's use of "anti-messiness" arguments to interpret statutes and to bring theoretical attention to the principle of "messiness" avoidance. The Article begins by defining the concept of anti-messiness and providing a typology of common anti-messiness arguments used by the Supreme Court. It then considers some dangers inherent in the …
Transtemporal Separation Of Powers In The Law Of Precedent, Randy Beck
Transtemporal Separation Of Powers In The Law Of Precedent, Randy Beck
Scholarly Works
The rule of stare decisis creates a presumption that a court’s ruling on a legal question remains binding in later decisions by the same court or hierarchically inferior courts. This presumption promotes stability in the law and protects reliance interests. Decisions that narrowly construe or overrule prior opinions can therefore seem like unprincipled threats to the rule of law.
This article seeks to highlight some countervailing themes in the case law, showing that stability and the protection of reliance interests are not the exclusive concerns underlying the law of precedent. The relevant doctrine attempts to balance these objectives with competing …
Courthouse Iconography And Chayesian Judical Practice, William H. Simon
Courthouse Iconography And Chayesian Judical Practice, William H. Simon
Faculty Scholarship
Judith Resnik and Dennis Curtis emphasize in Representing Justice that the traditional iconography of courthouses is incongruent with the current practices of the institutions that inhabit them. The key elements of traditional iconography – the blindfolded, scale-balancing Justitia and the courtroom configured for the trial – connote adjudication. Yet, the fraction of judicial work that involves deciding cases on the merits or conducting trials has decreased dramatically. Most judicial work today is basically managerial.
We could reduce this incongruity, on the one hand, by reviving the practical adjudicatory focus of the past or, on the other, by revising the iconography …
The Paradox Of Political Power: Post-Racialism, Equal Protection, And Democracy, William M. Carter Jr.
The Paradox Of Political Power: Post-Racialism, Equal Protection, And Democracy, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
Racial minorities have achieved unparalleled electoral success in recent years. Simultaneously, they have continued to rank at or near the bottom in terms of health, wealth, income, education, and the effects of the criminal justice system. Social conservatives, including those on the Supreme Court, have latched onto evidence of isolated electoral success as proof of “post-racialism,” while ignoring the evidence of continued disparities for the vast majority of people of color.
This Essay will examine the tension between the Court's conservatives' repeated calls for minorities to achieve their goals through the political process and the Supreme Court's increasingly restrictive "colorblind" …
Legal Process In A Box, Or What Class Action Waivers Teach Us About Law-Making, Rhonda Wasserman
Legal Process In A Box, Or What Class Action Waivers Teach Us About Law-Making, Rhonda Wasserman
Articles
The Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion advanced an agenda found in neither the text nor the legislative history of the Federal Arbitration Act. Concepcion provoked a maelstrom of reactions not only from the press and the academy, but also from Congress, federal agencies and lower courts, as they struggled to interpret, apply, reverse, or cabin the Court’s blockbuster decision. These reactions raise a host of provocative questions about the relationships among the branches of government and between the Supreme Court and the lower courts. Among other questions, Concepcion and its aftermath force us to grapple with the …
The Persistence Of Proximate Cause: How Legal Doctrine Thrives On Skepticism, Jessie Allen
The Persistence Of Proximate Cause: How Legal Doctrine Thrives On Skepticism, Jessie Allen
Articles
This Article starts with a puzzle: Why is the doctrinal approach to “proximate cause” so resilient despite longstanding criticism? Proximate cause is a particularly extreme example of doctrine that limps along despite near universal consensus that it cannot actually determine legal outcomes. Why doesn’t that widely recognized indeterminacy disable proximate cause as a decision-making device? To address this puzzle, I pick up a cue from the legal realists, a group of skeptical lawyers, law professors, and judges, who, in the 1920s and 1930s, compared legal doctrine to ritual magic. I take that comparison seriously, perhaps more seriously, and definitely in …
The Realism Of Race In Judicial Decision Making: An Empirical Analysis Of Plaintiffs' Race And Judges' Race, Pat K. Chew, Robert E. Kelley
The Realism Of Race In Judicial Decision Making: An Empirical Analysis Of Plaintiffs' Race And Judges' Race, Pat K. Chew, Robert E. Kelley
Articles
American society is becoming increasingly diverse. At the same time, the federal judiciary continues to be predominantly White. What difference does this make? This article offers an empirical answer to that question through an extensive study of workplace racial harassment cases. It finds that judges of different races reach different conclusions, with non-African American judges less likely to hold for the plaintiffs. It also finds that plaintiffs of different races fare differently, with African Americans the most likely to lose and Hispanics the most likely to be successful. Finally, countering the formalism model’s tenet that judges are color-blind, the results …
The Supreme Court Sourcebook (Forthcoming), Joseph Thai, Richard Seamon, Andrew Siegel, Kathryn Watts
The Supreme Court Sourcebook (Forthcoming), Joseph Thai, Richard Seamon, Andrew Siegel, Kathryn Watts
Joseph T Thai
No abstract provided.
The Targeted Killing Judgment Of The Israeli Supreme Court And The Critique Of Legal Violence, Markus Gunneflo
The Targeted Killing Judgment Of The Israeli Supreme Court And The Critique Of Legal Violence, Markus Gunneflo
Markus Gunneflo
The targeted killing judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court has, since it was handed down in December 2006, received a significant amount of attention: praise as well as criticism. Offering neither praise nor criticism, the present article is instead an attempt at a ‘critique’ of the judgment drawing on the German-Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin’s famous essay from 1921, ‘Critique of Violence’. The article focuses on a key aspect of Benjamin’s critique: the distinction between the two modalities of ‘legal violence’ – lawmaking or foundational violence and law-preserving or administrative violence. Analysing the fact that the Court exercises jurisdiction over these …