Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (3)
- Judicial review (3)
- Congress (2)
- SCOTUS (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
-
- Abuse (1)
- Americans (1)
- Article III (1)
- CPS (1)
- Comparative law (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional change (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional theory (1)
- Controversy (1)
- Courts (1)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Democratic decline (1)
- Deshaney (1)
- Ethics (1)
- Federal and local (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Five-four decisions (1)
- Fourteenth amendment (1)
- Judicial activism (1)
- Judicial consensus (1)
- Judicial decision-making (1)
- Judicial law (1)
- Judiciary (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Why Judges Can't Save Democracy, Robert L. Tsai
Why Judges Can't Save Democracy, Robert L. Tsai
Faculty Scholarship
In The Specter of Dictatorship,1 David Driesen has written a learned, lively book about the dangers of autocracy, weaving together incisive observations about democratic backsliding in other countries with a piercing critique of American teetering on the brink of executive authoritarianism at home. Driesen draws deeply and faithfully on the extant literature on comparative constitutionalism and democracy studies. He also builds on the work of scholars of the American political system who have documented the largely one-way transfer of power over foreign affairs to the executive branch. Driesen's thesis has a slight originalist cast, holding that "the Founders aimed …
“Government By Injunction,” Legal Elites, And The Making Of The Modern Federal Courts, Kristin Collins
“Government By Injunction,” Legal Elites, And The Making Of The Modern Federal Courts, Kristin Collins
Faculty Scholarship
The tendency of legal discourse to obscure the processes by which social and political forces shape the law’s development is well known, but the field of federal courts in American constitutional law may provide a particularly clear example of this phenomenon. According to conventional accounts, Congress’s authority to regulate the lower federal courts’ “jurisdiction”—generally understood to include their power to issue injunctions— has been a durable feature of American constitutional law since the founding. By contrast, the story I tell in this essay is one of change. During the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, many jurists considered the federal …
A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus And Deference On The Supreme Court, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus And Deference On The Supreme Court, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has struck down federal statutes by a bare majority with unprecedented frequency. This Article shows that five-four decisions regularly overturning acts of Congress are a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas earlier Courts generally exercised judicial review by supermajority voting.
One option is to establish the following rule: The Supreme Court may not declare an act of Congress unconstitutional without a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court itself could establish this rule internally, just as it has created its nonmajority rules for granting certiorari and holds, or one Justice who would otherwise be the fifth …
Administrative Failure And Local Democracy: The Politics Of Deshaney, Jack M. Beermann
Administrative Failure And Local Democracy: The Politics Of Deshaney, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
This Essay is an effort to construct a normative basis for a constitutional theory to resist the Supreme Court's recent decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.1 In DeShaney, the Court decided that a local social service worker's failure to prevent child abuse did not violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment even though the social worker "had reason to believe" the abuse was occurring. 2 Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion for the Court held that government inaction cannot violate due process unless the state has custody of the victim, 3 thus settling a controversial …
Choosing Judges The Democratic Way, Larry Yackle
Choosing Judges The Democratic Way, Larry Yackle
Faculty Scholarship
A generation ago, the pressing question in constitutional law was the countermajoritarian difficulty.' Americans insisted their government was a democratic republic and took that to mean rule by a majority of elected representatives in various offices and bodies, federal and local. Yet courts whose members had not won election presumed to override the actions of executive and legislative officers who had. The conventional answer to this apparent paradox was the Constitution, which arguably owed its existence to the people directly. Judicial review was justified, accordingly, when court decisions were rooted firmly in the particular text, structure, or historical backdrop of …
The Intellectual Development Of The American Doctrine Of Judicial Review, Pnina Lahav
The Intellectual Development Of The American Doctrine Of Judicial Review, Pnina Lahav
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.