Judges Commons^™

Judicial Review And Non-Enforcement At The Founding, Matthew Steilen

Matthew Steilen

This Article examines the relationship between judicial review and presidential non-enforcement of statutory law. Defenders of non-enforcement regularly argue that the justification for judicial review that prevailed at the time of the founding also justifies the president in declining to enforce unconstitutional laws. The argument is unsound. This Article shows that there is essentially no historical evidence, from ratification through the first decade under the Constitution, in support of a non-enforcement power. It also shows that the framers repeatedly made statements inconsistent with the supposition that the president could refuse to enforce laws he deemed unconstitutional. In contrast, during this …

On The Place Of Judge-Made Law In A Government Of Laws, Matthew Steilen

Matthew Steilen

This essay explores a constitutional account of the elevation of the judiciary in American states following the Revolution. The core of the account is a connection between two fundamental concepts in Anglo-American constitutional thinking, discretion and a government of laws. In the periods examined here, arbitrary discretion tended to be associated with alien power and heteronomy, while bounded discretion was associated with self-rule. The formal, solemn, forensic, and public character of proceedings in courts of law suggested to some that judge-made law (a product of judicial discretion under these proceedings) did not express simply the will of the judge or …

Justice Under Siege: The Rule Of Law And Judicial Subservience In Kenya, Makau Mutua

Makau Mutua

The piece examines the tortured history of the judiciary in Kenya and concludes that various governments have deliberately robbed judges of judicial independence. As such, the judiciary has become part and parcel of the culture of impunity and corruption. This was particularly under the one party state, although nothing really changed with the introduction of a more open political system. The article argues that judicial subservience is one of the major reasons that state despotism continues to go unchallenged. It concludes by underlining the critical role that the judiciary has to play in a democratic polity.

Judging The Judiciary By The Numbers: Empirical Research On Judges, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich

Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Do judges make decisions that are truly impartial? A wide range of experimental and field studies reveal that several extra-legal factors influence judicial decision making. Demographic characteristics of judges and litigants affect judges’ decisions. Judges also rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in deciding cases, making them vulnerable to the use of mental shortcuts that can lead to mistakes. Furthermore, judges sometimes rely on facts outside the record and rule more favorably towards litigants who are more sympathetic or with whom they share demographic characteristics. On the whole, judges are excellent decision makers, and sometimes resist common errors of judgment that …

"The Stepford Justices": The Need For Experiential Diversity On The Roberts Court, Timothy P. O'Neill

Timothy P. O'Neill

No abstract provided.

The Roberts Court And Freedom Of Speech, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

This is an edited version of a speech delivered on December 16, 2010 in Washington, D.C., as part of the Federal Communications Bar Association's Distinguished Speaker Series. This speech was given by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky in December 2010 as part of the FCBA's Distinguished Speaker Series. In the speech, Dean Chemerinsky offers his perspectives on and analysis of the Supreme Court's position on freedom of speech in recent years. He highlights important recent freedom of speech decisions made by the Roberts Court, and gives some projections as to where the court is heading in the years to come, given its …

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

An Overview Of The October 2005 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

“An Ingenious Man Enabled By Contract”: Entrepreneurship And The Rise Of Contract, Catherine Fisk

Catherine Fisk

A legal ideology emerged in the 1870s that celebrated contract as the body of law with the particular purpose of facilitating the formation of productive exchanges that would enrich the parties to the contract and, therefore, society as a whole. Across the spectrum of intellectual property, courts used the legal fiction of implied contract, and a version of it particularly emphasizing liberty of contract, to shift control of workplace knowledge from skilled employees to firms while suggesting that the emergence of hierarchical control and loss of entrepreneurial opportunity for creative workers was consistent with the free labor ideology that dominated …

The Judicial Duty To Give Reasons: Thong Ah Fat V Public Prosecutor [2011] Sgca 65, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

The accused was charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act after being found with 142.41 grams of diamorphine at the Woodlands Checkpoint. The High Court Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him to death in a brief judgment of five paragraphs. The Court of Appeal, however, ordered a retrial as it was of the view that the Judge’s reasoning was “unclear” and the “judicial duty to give reasoned decisions” was not discharged

"A Radical Proposal": The Multidistrict Litigation Act Of 1968, Andrew D. Bradt

Andrew D. Bradt

Article I Judges In An Article Iii World: The Career Path Of Magistrate Judges, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

Tracey George

No abstract provided.

A Courtroom Diagnosis: Countering The Defense Of Temporary Brittle Bone Disease And Mild Oi, Joelle A. Moreno

Joelle A. Moreno

In child abuse cases involving multiple fractures, prosecutors and investigators are increasingly facing a relatively new defense. In some jurisdictions, judges are allowing defense medical experts to testify that infants have not been abused, but instead suffer from a mild form of Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI) or a purported variant of OI, Temporary Brittle Bone Disease (TBBD). These diagnoses are offered in cases where the injuries are highly specific for abuse because they involve: (1) fractures typical of abuse in different stages of healing; (2) infants who have tested negative for conventionally diagnosable metabolic bone diseases (including OI); and (3) infants …

Judges Or Hostages? The Bureaucratization Of The Court Of Justice Of The European Union And The European Court Of Human Rights, Mathilde Cohen

Mathilde Cohen

Has Nihilism Politicized The Supreme Court Nomination Process?, Bruce Ledewitz

Bruce Ledewitz