Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Extralegal Supreme Court Policy-Making, Joëlle Anne Moreno
Extralegal Supreme Court Policy-Making, Joëlle Anne Moreno
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
The Colbert Report aired its final episode on December 18, 2014.1 Nine years earlier, on the first episode, Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness.” Truthiness satirized contemporary disinterest in empirical information in a country increasingly “divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart.” Truthiness was not just the Merriam-Webster word of the year. Over the past decade, it has been the unspoken mantra of reporters who give equal time to climate science denialists, faith healers, and vaccine refusers. When Justices of the Supreme Court decide questions of scientific or empirical fact—such as whether …
How To Make Sense Of Supreme Court Standing Cases – A Plea For The Right Kind Of Realism, Richard H. Fallon Jr.
How To Make Sense Of Supreme Court Standing Cases – A Plea For The Right Kind Of Realism, Richard H. Fallon Jr.
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Does The Supreme Court Ignore Standing Problems To Reach The Merits? Evidence (Or Lack Thereof) From The Roberts Court, Heather Elliott
Does The Supreme Court Ignore Standing Problems To Reach The Merits? Evidence (Or Lack Thereof) From The Roberts Court, Heather Elliott
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Standing And The Role Of Federal Courts: Triple Error Decisions In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa And City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons, Vicki C. Jackson
Standing And The Role Of Federal Courts: Triple Error Decisions In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa And City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons, Vicki C. Jackson
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Governmental Sovereignty Actions, Ann Woolhandler
Governmental Sovereignty Actions, Ann Woolhandler
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Oral Dissenting On The Supreme Court, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro
Oral Dissenting On The Supreme Court, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In this Article we offer the first comprehensive evaluation of oral dissenting on the Supreme Court. We examine the practice in both historical and contemporary perspective, take stock of the emerging academic literature on the subject, and suggest a new framework for analysis of oral dissenting. Specifically, we put forth several claims. Contrary to the common assumption of scholarship and media coverage, oral dissents are nothing new. Oral dissenting has a long tradition, and its history provides valuable lessons for understanding the potential and limits of oral dissents today. Furthermore, not all oral dissents are alike. Dissenting Justices may have …
In Defense Of Ideology: A Principled Apporach To The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand
In Defense Of Ideology: A Principled Apporach To The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In this paper, Professor Ringhand offers a principled defense of an ideological approach to the Supreme Court Justice confirmation process. In constructing her argument, she does three things. First, she explores how the insights provided by recent empirical legal scholarship have created a need to rethink the role of the Supreme Court and, consequently, the process by which we select Supreme Court Justices. In doing so, Professor Ringhand explains how these insights have called into question much of our conventional constitutional narrative, and how this failure of the conventional narrative has in turn undermined traditional objections to an ideologically-based confirmation …
Retaining Judicial Authority: A Preliminary Inquiry On The Dominion Of Judges, Larry Catá Backer
Retaining Judicial Authority: A Preliminary Inquiry On The Dominion Of Judges, Larry Catá Backer
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Why do the people and institutions of democratic states, and in particular those of the United States, obey judges ? This article examines the foundations of judicial authority in the United States. This authority is grounded on principles of dominance derived from the organization of institutional religion. The judge in Western states asserts authority on the same basis as the priest - but not the priest as conventionally understood. Rather, the authority of the judge in modern Western democratic states is better understood when viewed through the analytical lens of priestly function developed in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Focusing …
Comparing Judicial Selection Systems, Lee Epstein, Jack C. Knight, Olga Shvetsova
Comparing Judicial Selection Systems, Lee Epstein, Jack C. Knight, Olga Shvetsova
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.