Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Appellate Judges (1)
- Behavioral Economics (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- District Judges (1)
-
- Evidence (1)
- Federal Judges (1)
- History of Selection & Appointment of U.S. Supreme Court Justices (1)
- John G. Roberts Jr. (1)
- Journalists (1)
- Judges (1)
- Judicial Selection & Appointment (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Legal Interpretation (1)
- Legal Language (1)
- Merrick Garland (1)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (1)
- New York Times Co. v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (1)
- Polarization (1)
- Political Appointments (1)
- Press and Politics (1)
- Public Opinion (1)
- Samuel A. Alito Jr. (1)
- Semiotics (1)
- Social Status (1)
- Supreme Court Decisions (1)
- Supreme Court Justices (1)
- United States Constitution. 1st Amendment (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Judges
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 …
Protecting The Role Of The Press During Times Of Crisis, Mary-Rose Papandrea
Protecting The Role Of The Press During Times Of Crisis, Mary-Rose Papandrea
William & Mary Law Review
President Trump’s daily tweets attacking the media have led many observers to express concern about the state of the press in our nation. Trump has called the press “the ... enemy of the [American] people,” encouraged a climate of hatred toward journalists at his rallies, refused to condemn Saudi Arabia for the brutal killing of reporter Jamal Khashoggi, and accused the media of writing “fake news.” The public’s trust in the institutional press has simultaneously diminished. Combined with the continuing economic challenges journalists face, the press is certainly facing some difficult times.
Nevertheless, things are not as dire as they …
Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes
Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes
William & Mary Law Review
Injustice in criminal cases often takes root before trial begins. Overworked criminal judges must resolve difficult pretrial evidentiary issues that determine the charges the State will take to trial and the range of sentences the defendant will face. Wrong decisions on these issues often lead to wrongful convictions. As behavioral law and economic theory suggests, judges who are cognitively busy and receive little feedback on these topics from appellate courts rely upon intuition, rather than deliberative reasoning, to resolve these questions. This leads to inconsistent rulings, which prosecutors exploit to expand the scope of evidentiary exceptions that almost always disfavor …
Democratizing Interpretation, Anya Bernstein
Democratizing Interpretation, Anya Bernstein
William & Mary Law Review
Judges interpreting statutes sometimes seem eager to outsource the work. They quote ordinary speakers to define a statutory term, point to how an audience understands it, or pin it down with interpretive canons. But sometimes conduct that appears to diminish someone’s power instead sneakily enhances it. So it is with these forms of interpretive outsourcing. Each seems to constrain judges’ authority by handing the reins to someone else, giving interpretation a democratized veneer. But in fact, each funnels power right back to the judge.
These outsourcing approaches show a disconnect between the questions judges pose and the methods they use …
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 …
Why The Supreme Court Cares About Elites, Not The American People, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Why The Supreme Court Cares About Elites, Not The American People, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
Supreme Court Justices care more about the views of academics, journalists, and other elites than they do about public opinion. This is true of nearly all Justices and is especially true of swing Justices, who often cast the critical votes in the Court’s most visible decisions. In this Article, we will explain why we think this is so and, in so doing, challenge both the dominant political science models of judicial behavior and the significant work of Barry Friedman, Jeffrey Rosen, and others who link Supreme Court decision making to public opinion.