Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- U.S. Supreme Court case (3)
- Democrat (2)
- Due process (2)
- Judges (2)
- Nominee (2)
-
- Politics (2)
- President Trump (2)
- Republican (2)
- Taney Court (2)
- 9-11 Terrorist Attacks (1)
- Advice and consent (1)
- American electorate (1)
- Appellate Judges (1)
- Appointment (1)
- Appointment power (1)
- Arms reduction (1)
- Asylum (1)
- Attorney behavior (1)
- Attorney ethics (1)
- Border crisis (1)
- Border patrol (1)
- Border policy (1)
- Bush (1)
- CBP (1)
- CDC (1)
- Candidacy (1)
- Centers for Disease Control (1)
- Checks and balances (1)
- Clinton (1)
- Congress (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- University of Richmond Law Review (5)
- Arkansas Law Review (3)
- Channels: Where Disciplines Meet (1)
- IUSTITIA (1)
- International Bulletin of Political Psychology (1)
-
- Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies (1)
- San Diego Law Review (1)
- St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics (1)
- The Compass (1)
- The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice (1)
- The University of New Hampshire Law Review (1)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (1)
- William & Mary Law Review Online (1)
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Judges
The Intersection Of Judicial Interpretive Methods And Politics In Supreme Court Justices’ Due Process Opinions, Julie Castle
The Intersection Of Judicial Interpretive Methods And Politics In Supreme Court Justices’ Due Process Opinions, Julie Castle
The Compass
The Supreme Court, a nine seat bench of unelected and lifetime tenured Justices, determines the constitutionality of dozens of cases each year. In this thesis, I research to what extent the political affiliation of the Justices affects the judicial decision making process and, ultimately, case outcomes. Using pattern matching, I evaluate due process opinions from Justice Breyer, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia, all of whom have established constitutional analysis methods, in order to determine if they reasonably adhere to their established method. Due to the highly political nature of due process cases, variance between the expected (adherence to the Justices’ …
Sufficiently Judicial: The Need For A Universal Ethics Rule On Attorney Behavior In Legislative Impeachment Trials, Joshua E. Kastenberg
Sufficiently Judicial: The Need For A Universal Ethics Rule On Attorney Behavior In Legislative Impeachment Trials, Joshua E. Kastenberg
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
In assessing an ethics, rule-based prohibition against New Jersey governmental attorneys representing clients against the state for matters the state had previously assigned to them, the state supreme court noted: “In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials and employees shall hold the respect and confidence of the people.”
In the beginning of 2020, the United States Senate held an impeachment trial to determine whether former President Donald J. Trump had committed offenses forwarded by the House of Representatives. A U.S. Senate trial, much like state senate trials, is both judicial and political …
It Is Time To Get Back To Basics On The Border, Donna Coltharp
It Is Time To Get Back To Basics On The Border, Donna Coltharp
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Abstract forthcoming.
Comments On Mcgahn "A Brief History Of Judicial Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration", Russell Wheeler
Comments On Mcgahn "A Brief History Of Judicial Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration", Russell Wheeler
William & Mary Law Review Online
Donald McGahn is a respected member of the Washington D.C. legal community, known especially for his expertise in election law. He served as White House counsel in the Trump administration until October 2018 and was a key player in the Trump administration’s judicial appointments process.His article is witty, sometimes revealing, but above all a description, as he sees it, of the decades-long deterioration of the process for Senate confirmation of federal judicial nominees, with some blame assigning. He also provides a few behind-the-scenes looks at Trump administration confirmation battles, and some recommendations for easing contentiousness in— or at least, speeding …
'It Wasn't Supposed To Be Easy': What The Founders Originally Intended For The Senate's 'Advice And Consent' Role For Supreme Court Confirmation Processes, Michael W. Wilt
Channels: Where Disciplines Meet
The Founders exerted significant energy and passion in formulating the Appointments Clause, which greatly impacts the role of the Senate and the President in appointing Supreme Court Justices. The Founders, through their understanding of human nature, devised the power to be both a check by the U.S. Senate on the President's nomination, and a concurrent power through joint appointment authority. The Founders initially adopted the Senate election mode via state legislatures as a means of insulation from majoritarian passions of the people too. This paper seeks to understand the Founders envisioning for the Senate's 'Advice and Consent' role as it …
Overruling Mcculloch?, Mark A. Graber
Overruling Mcculloch?, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Daniel Webster warned Whig associates in 1841 that the Supreme Court would likely declare unconstitutional the national bank bill that Henry Clay was pushing through the Congress. This claim was probably based on inside information. Webster was a close association of Justice Joseph Story. The justices at this time frequently leaked word to their political allies of judicial sentiments on the issues of the day. Even if Webster lacked first-hand knowledge of how the Taney Court would probably rule in a case raising the constitutionality of the national bank, the personnel on that tribunal provided strong grounds for Whig pessimism. …
M'Culloch In Context, Mark R. Killenbeck
M'Culloch In Context, Mark R. Killenbeck
Arkansas Law Review
M’Culloch v. Maryland is rightly regarded as a landmark opinion, one that affirmed the ability of Congress to exercise implied powers, articulated a rule of deference to Congressional judgments about whether given legislative actions were in fact “necessary,” and limited the ability of the states to impair or restrict the operations of the federal government. Most scholarly discussions of the case and its legacy emphasize these aspects of the decision. Less common are attempts to place M’Culloch within the ebb and flow of the Marshall Court and the political and social realities of the time. So, for example, very few …
The Confusing Language Of Mcculloch V. Maryland: Did Marshall Really Know What He Was Doing (Or Meant)?, Sanford Levinson
The Confusing Language Of Mcculloch V. Maryland: Did Marshall Really Know What He Was Doing (Or Meant)?, Sanford Levinson
Arkansas Law Review
All legal “interpretation” involves confrontation with inherently indeterminate language. I have distinguished in my own work between what I call the Constitution of Settlement and the Constitution of Conversation. The former includes those aspects of the Constitution that do indeed seem devoid of interpretive challenge, such as the unfortunate assignment of two senators to each state or the specification of the terms of office of representatives, senators, and presidents. I am quite happy to concede that “two,” “four,” and “six” have determinate meaning, though my concession is not based on a fancy theory of linguistics. It is, rather, a recognition …
In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales
In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court Judges …
The Judicial Behavior Of Justice Souter In Criminal Cases And The Denial Of A Conservative Counterrevolution, Scott P. Johnson
The Judicial Behavior Of Justice Souter In Criminal Cases And The Denial Of A Conservative Counterrevolution, Scott P. Johnson
The University of New Hampshire Law Review
[Excerpt] “The following article documents the judicial career of Justice David Souter from his time served as an attorney general and state judge in New Hampshire until his recent tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court. Based upon his written opinions and individual votes, Justice Souter clearly has evolved into a more liberal jurist than ideological conservatives would have preferred in the area of criminal justice. Over the course of his judicial career, Justice Souter has gained respect as an intellectual scholar by attempting to completely understand both sides of a dispute and applying precedent and legal rules in a flexible—albeit …
No Constitutional Right To A Rubber Stamp, Richard J. Durbin
No Constitutional Right To A Rubber Stamp, Richard J. Durbin
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Confirmation Wars: Ideology And The Battle For The Federal Courts, Sheldon Goldman
Judicial Confirmation Wars: Ideology And The Battle For The Federal Courts, Sheldon Goldman
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Why Nuclear Disarmament May Be Easier To Achieve Than An End To Partisan Conflict Over Judicial Appointments, David S. Law, Sanford Levinson
Why Nuclear Disarmament May Be Easier To Achieve Than An End To Partisan Conflict Over Judicial Appointments, David S. Law, Sanford Levinson
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Standards Of The Supreme Court, John Cornyn
Standards Of The Supreme Court, John Cornyn
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Debunking Double Standards, John Cornyn
Debunking Double Standards, John Cornyn
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Discretion In Dispensing With The Service Of Process Requirement In Hong Kong Under Order 45, Rule 7(7), Simon Teng
Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies
No abstract provided.
Trends. Disclosure Of Post-9-11 Arrestees And Maslow’S Hierarchy Of Needs, Ibpp Editor
Trends. Disclosure Of Post-9-11 Arrestees And Maslow’S Hierarchy Of Needs, Ibpp Editor
International Bulletin of Political Psychology
This Trends article discusses the Maslowian hierarchy of needs in the context of 9-11 terrorist attacks and the relationship between executive and judicial branches of American government.
Judicial Review Of Discretionary Immigration Decisionmaking, Michael G. Heyman
Judicial Review Of Discretionary Immigration Decisionmaking, Michael G. Heyman
San Diego Law Review
The Immigration and Nationality Act vests enormous discretion in the Attorney General and subordinates, such discretion exercised frequently at all levels of the immigration system. Despite this, though, judicial review of these decisions has followed a very uneven, troubled course. This Article explores the reasons for this, focusing first on the Administrative Procedure Act and the elusive meaning of discretion itself. The author demonstrates the "disintegration" of administrative law and what he sees as the failure of its general precepts to accommodate immigration issues. The Article traces the development of faulty doctrine through case law, resulting in a stunted judicial …
Judicial Incentives: Some Evidence From Urban Trial Courts, Greg A. Caldeira
Judicial Incentives: Some Evidence From Urban Trial Courts, Greg A. Caldeira
IUSTITIA
In the following pages, I shall outline the basics of a method for studying the motivations of trial judges - or any public officials, for that matter - that I find particularly interesting and fruitful - "incentive theory". The use of incentive theory is, in my view, a preliminary contribution to an ongoing movement to fill glaring gaps in the literature on judicial motivation and trial judging.