Judges Commons^™

Comparing Judicial Selection Systems, Lee Epstein, Jack C. Knight, Olga Shvetsova

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Questioning Of Lower Federal Court Nominees At Senate Confirmation Hearings, William Ross

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Bush Administration And Appeals Court Nominees, Carl Tobias

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction To The Symposium: The Judicial Process Appointments Process, Carly Van Orman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Aba's Role In Prescreening Federal Judicial Candidates: Are We Ready To Give Up On The Lawyers?, Laura E. Little

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The "Blue Slip": Enforcing The Norms Of The Judicial Confirmation Process, Brannon P. Denning

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Competency Conundrum: Problems Courts Have Faced In Applying Different Standards For Competency To Be Executed, John L. Farringer, Iv

Vanderbilt Law Review

Throughout Anglo-American legal history, there has been a general agreement, based on numerous rationales, that mentally incompetent inmates should not be executed for their crimes. The recurring problem, however, is how to define "incompetence" or "insanity." Legislatures and courts have sought to provide a common- sense definition, but in practice judges must confront highly technical terminology from the ever evolving field of psychiatry. Additionally, the definition must be flexible enough to apply to a variety of cases, while being universal enough to assure that all defendants are treated fairly and equally.

At hearings to determine a prisoner's competency to be …

Now You See It, Now You Don't: Depublication And Nonpublication Of Opinions Raise Motive Questions, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The basis for these comments is a decision last year by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Anastasoff v. United States. The court held that an Eighth Circuit local rule, which authorized nonpublication of opinions and explicitly stated that unpublished opinions were to have no precedential effect, was unconstitutional. The panel, in an opinion by Judge Richard S. Arnold, reasoned that a court rule purporting to confer upon appellate judges an absolute power to decide which decisions would be binding and which would not be binding went well beyond the “judicial power” within the meaning of Article III of …

Judicial Nomination And Confirmation Process: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 107th Cong., Sept. 4, 2001 (Statement Of Mark V. Tushnet, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Mark V. Tushnet

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Picking Federal Judges: A Note On Policy And Partisan Selection Agendas, Micheal W. Giles, Virginia A. Hettinger, Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

The importance of lower federal courts in the policymaking process has stimulated extensive research programs focused on the process of selecting the judges of these courts and the factors influencing their decisions. The present study employs judicial decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals as a window through which to reexamine the politics of selection to the lower courts. It differs from previous studies of selection in three ways. First, it takes advantage of recent innovations in measurement to go beyond reliance on political party as a measure of the preferences of actors in the selection process. Second, employing these …

Why Judges Don't Like Petitions For Rehearing, Richard S. Arnold

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Petitions for en banc rehearings are rarely granted. A Senior Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit provides a history and reasoning of the rehearing process and his personal observations on those petitions and processes in today's court.

Appellate Rule 16(B): The Scope Of Review In An Appeal Based Solely Upon A Dissent In The Court Of Appeals, Thomas L. Fowler

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Judiciary In The United States: A Search For Fairness, Independence And Competence, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

Alexander Hamilton referred to the judiciary as “the least dangerous branch” because it could neither make nor enforce the law without help from the other two branches of government. In the years since then, however, courts and judges in the United States have assumed a much more prominent role in society. American judges preside over criminal trials and sentence those convicted, decide all kinds of civil disputes, both large and small, and make important decisions involving families, such as child custody. They have also become the primary guarantors of the civil and constitutional rights of American citizens.

The case of …

Legal Arguments In The Opinions Of Montana Territorial Chief Justice Decius S. Wade, Andrew P. Morriss

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Remarks Delivered By Videotape For Ceremonies Celebrating Howard Munson's 25th Year As A Federal Judge, Roger J. Miner '56

Tributes & Testimonials

No abstract provided.

Book #23, Roger J. Miner '56

Scrapbooks

No abstract provided.

El Documento Y La Firma Digital En El Derecho Argentino, Horacio M. Lynch

Horacio M. LYNCH

No abstract provided.

Court Fixing, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article critically examines the existing social science evidence on the relative importance of various individual factors on judicial behavior and adds to that evidence by considering the influence of prior academic experience on judges. Researchers have not focused much attention on the importance of a judge's background as a full-time law professor and legal scholar, although more than thirteen percent of courts of appeals appointees were former law professors. Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan both viewed the federal judiciary (particularly the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals) as integral to their policy agendas, and both further believed that …

Piercing The Veil: William J. Brennan's Account Of Regents Of The University Of California V. Bakke, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court As A Strategic National Policymaker, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Andrew D. Martin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Science On Legal Decisions: What Can Social Science Tell The Courts And Lawyers?, Theresa M. Beiner

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Publicly Financed Judicial Elections: An Overview, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The William S. Boyd School Of Law Juvenile Justice Clinic, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

This article reviews the work of the Juvenile Justice Clinic at the William S. Boyd School of Law.

Comparing Judicial Selection Systems, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Olga Shvetsova

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Making Progress The Old-Fashioned Way, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judicial Fact-Finding And Sentence Enhancements In A World Of Guilty Pleas, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Trying To Make Peace With Bush V. Gore (Symposium: Bush V. Gore Issue 2001), Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, shutting down the recounts of Florida's vote in the 2000 presidential election and effectively awarding the election to George W. Bush, has struck many observers, including myself, as outrageous.' Decisions of the Supreme Court should be more than mere reflections of ideological or partisan preference thinly camouflaged behind legalistic language. It would therefore be pleasant to be able to believe that they are more than that. Accordingly, Judge Richard Posner's analysis,2 in which he defends the result reached by the Court-though not the path by which it got there-is particularly welcome. Though …

Free-Standing Due Process And Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court's Search For Interpretive Guidelines, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

When I was first introduced to the constitutional regulation of criminal procedure in the mid-1950s, a single issue dominated the field: To what extent did the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment impose upon states the same constitutional restraints that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments imposed upon the federal government? While those Bill of Rights provisions, as even then construed, imposed a broad range of constitutional restraints upon the federal criminal justice system, the federal system was (and still is) minuscule as compared to the combined systems of the fifty states. With the Bill of Rights provisions …