Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Judges--Evaluation (5)
- Judges (3)
- Judicial process (3)
- Courts (2)
- Judicial impartiality (2)
-
- Judicial opinions (2)
- Appellate courts (1)
- Backlash (1)
- Betty Binns Fletcher (1)
- Bias (1)
- Canons of construction (1)
- Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (1)
- Caperton v. Massey (1)
- Chief Justice John G. Roberts (1)
- Church and state--United States. (1)
- Citizens United v. FEC (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Class actions (Civil procedure) (1)
- Clifford Scott Green (1)
- Columbia Law Review (1)
- Community and society studies (1)
- Confirmatory legislative history (1)
- Constitution. 1st Amendment (1)
- Court of Appeals (9th) (1)
- Deans (Education) (1)
- Democratic Legitimacy (1)
- Departmentalism (1)
- Direct Democracy (1)
- District courts (1)
- Empathy (1)
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Judges
The Twist Of Long Terms: Judicial Elections, Role Fidelity, And American Tort Law, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
The Twist Of Long Terms: Judicial Elections, Role Fidelity, And American Tort Law, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
The received wisdom is that American judges rejected strict liability through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To the contrary, a majority of state courts adopted Rylands v. Fletcher and strict liability for hazardous or unnatural activities after a series of flooding tragedies in the late nineteenth century. Federal judges and appointed state judges generally ignored or rejected Rylands, while elected state judges overwhelmingly adopted Rylands or a similar strict liability rule.
In moving from fault to strict liability, these judges were essentially responding to increased public fears of industrial or man-made hazards. Elected courts were more populist: they were …
Procuring ‘Justice’?: Citizens United, Caperton, And Partisan Judicial Elections, André Douglas Pond Cummings
Procuring ‘Justice’?: Citizens United, Caperton, And Partisan Judicial Elections, André Douglas Pond Cummings
Faculty Scholarship
In recent years, two inextricably connected issues have received a great deal of attention in both United States political discourse and in the legal academic literature. One issue of intense legal debate and frustration has been that of judicial recusal, including an examination of the appropriate standards that should necessarily apply to judges that seem conflicted or biased in their role as neutral arbiter. A second issue that has spawned heated commentary and great dispute over the past decade is that of campaign finance law, including examination of the role that powerful and wealthy benefactors play in American electioneering. Both …
A Public Calling: Lessons From The Lives Of Judges Of Color In Pennsylvania, Phoebe A. Haddon
A Public Calling: Lessons From The Lives Of Judges Of Color In Pennsylvania, Phoebe A. Haddon
Faculty Scholarship
This paper discusses how Judge Clifford Scott Green, Judge William Marutani, and Judge Juanita Kidd Stout spent their lives as leaders in the law to illustrate the ideal of a "public calling."
Current Issues In Judicial Disqualifications Symposium 2011, Michael W. Martin
Current Issues In Judicial Disqualifications Symposium 2011, Michael W. Martin
Faculty Scholarship
Public confidence in the judiciary's integrity is critical, and
From Judge To Dean: Reflections On The Bench And The Academy, David F. Levi
From Judge To Dean: Reflections On The Bench And The Academy, David F. Levi
Faculty Scholarship
In July of 2007, having served nearly seventeen years as a United States District Judge with chambers in Sacramento, California, I moved to Durham, North Carolina, to become the fourteenth dean of the Duke University Law School. I would concede that in the grand scheme of things such a transition must be deemed unremarkable. Lawyers have become soldiers, presidents, artists, and inn keepers. Judges have left the bench to do much the same. Nonetheless, in the somewhat closed worlds of the federal bench and the legal academy, at a time when the two worlds have seemed to drift apart, such …
Judicial Ability And Securities Class Actions, Mitu Gulati, Stephen J. Choi, Eric A. Posner
Judicial Ability And Securities Class Actions, Mitu Gulati, Stephen J. Choi, Eric A. Posner
Faculty Scholarship
We exploit a new data set of judicial rulings on motions in order to investigate the relationship between judicial ability and judicial outcomes. The data set consists of federal district judges’ rulings on motions to dismiss, to approve the lead plaintiff, and to approve attorneys’ fees in securities class actions cases, and also judges’ decisions to remove themselves from cases. We predict that higher-quality judges, as measured by citations, affirmance rates, and similar criteria, are more likely to dismiss cases, reject lead plaintiffs, reject attorneys’ fees, and retain cases rather than hand them over to other judges. Our results are …
Talking Judges, Mitu Gulati, Jack Knight
Talking Judges, Mitu Gulati, Jack Knight
Faculty Scholarship
What kinds of empirical questions about themselves and their colleagues on the bench are judges interested in asking? This was the topic of a recent conference at the Duke Law School. Our Essay reflects on the ways in which the judges at this conference and at a prior one talked about the empirical study of their community. To put it mildly, most of the judges were not fans of the empirical research. Our interest in this Essay is not, however, in responding to the judicial criticisms. Rather it is in drawing insights about how judges view themselves and their profession …
Evaluating Judges And Judicial Institutions: Reorienting The Perspective, Mitu Gulati, David E. Klein, David F. Levi
Evaluating Judges And Judicial Institutions: Reorienting The Perspective, Mitu Gulati, David E. Klein, David F. Levi
Faculty Scholarship
Empirical scholarship on judges, judging, and judicial institutions, a staple in political science, is becoming increasingly popular in law schools. We propose that this scholarship can be improved and enhanced by greater collaboration between empirical scholars, legal theorists, and the primary subjects of the research, the judges. We recently hosted a workshop that attempted to move away from the conventional mode of involving judges and theorists in empirical research, where they serve as commentators on empirical studies that they often see as reductionist and mis-focused. Instead, we had the judges and theorists set the discussion agenda for the empiricists by …
The Costs Of Judging Judges By The Numbers, Marin K. Levy, Kate Stith, Jose A. Cabranes
The Costs Of Judging Judges By The Numbers, Marin K. Levy, Kate Stith, Jose A. Cabranes
Faculty Scholarship
This essay discredits current empirical models that are designed to “judge” or rank appellate judges, and then assesses the harms of propagating such models. First, the essay builds on the discussion of empirical models by arguing that (1) the judicial virtues that the legal empiricists set out to measure have little bearing on what actually makes for a good judge; and (2) even if they did, the empiricists’ chosen variables have not measured those virtues accurately. The essay then concludes that by generating unreliable claims about the relative quality of judges, these studies mislead both decision-makers and the public, degrade …
Confirmatory Legislative History , James J. Brudney
Confirmatory Legislative History , James J. Brudney
Faculty Scholarship
Textualists and intentionalists regularly lock horns over the proper approach to construing statutory language regarded as inconclusive. The interpretive debate seems less contentious, however, when the words of the law are deemed clear. There may be reasonable disagreement as to whether the text at issue in a particular controversy has a plain meaning, but if it does then that meaning arguably preempts further inquiry. Since 1990, Supreme Court majority opinions are replete with declarations such as: "Given [a] straightforward statutory command, there is no reason to resort to legislative history"; or "we do not resort to legislative history to cloud …
A Tale Of Two Paradigms: Judicial Review And Judicial Duty, Philip A. Hamburger
A Tale Of Two Paradigms: Judicial Review And Judicial Duty, Philip A. Hamburger
Faculty Scholarship
What is the role of judges in holding government acts unconstitutional? The conventional paradigm is "judicial review." From this perspective, judges have a distinct power to review statutes and other government acts for their constitutionality. The historical evidence, however, reveals another paradigm, that of judicial duty. From this point of view, presented in my book Law and Judicial Duty, a judge has an office or duty, in all decisions, to exercise judgment in accord with the law of the land. On this understanding, there is no distinct power to review acts for their constitutionality, and what is called "judicial review" …
Professionals Or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case For An Elected Rather Than Appointed Judiciary, Mitu Gulati, Stephen J. Choi, Eric A. Posner
Professionals Or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case For An Elected Rather Than Appointed Judiciary, Mitu Gulati, Stephen J. Choi, Eric A. Posner
Faculty Scholarship
Conventional wisdom holds that appointed judges are superior to elected judges because appointed judges are less vulnerable to political pressure. However, there is little empirical evidence for this view. Using a data set of state high court opinions,we construct measures for three aspects of judicial performance: effort, skill, and independence. The measures permit a test of the relationship between performance and the four primary methods of state high court judge selection: partisan election, non-partisan election, merit plan, and appointment. Appointed judges write higher quality opinions than elected judges do, but elected judges write more opinions, and the evidence suggests that …
All Rise! Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
All Rise! Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
In this essay, based on a talk given at the Washington Law Review’s March 2009 symposium in honor of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher and her three decades of service on that court, I selectively survey her opinions on justiciability issues: standing, ripeness, mootness, and political questions. A significant starting point for this survey is Professor Richard Pierce’s 1999 law review article, Is Standing Law or Politics?, arguing that many Supreme Court votes in standing cases generally, and appellate judges’ votes in environmental-standing cases specifically, can be explained better on the basis of politics than by reference to …
Schrödinger’S Cross: The Quantum Mechanics Of The Establishment Clause, Joseph Blocher
Schrödinger’S Cross: The Quantum Mechanics Of The Establishment Clause, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
Perhaps the most famous character in modern physics is Schrödinger’s Cat, an unfortunate feline trapped in a box alongside a flask containing deadly poison that may or may not have been released. Thanks to the wonders of quantum mechanics, the cat is both alive and dead — “mixed or smeared out in equal parts” — until the box is opened, at which point the act of observation causes its state to collapse into either life or death.
Far away in the Mojave Desert, the “life” of a six-foot-tall cross is disputed: it is either a religious symbol or it is …
Interring The Rhetoric Of Judicial Activism, Neil S. Siegel
Interring The Rhetoric Of Judicial Activism, Neil S. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
For decades, leaders of the Republican Party have decried “judicial activism” and championed “judicial restraint.” For much of that time, Republican politicians have equated judicial restraint with a commitment to judicial deference, asserting that “activist” judges disrespect the will of popular majorities. More recently, as the Republican Party has solidified its control of the federal courts and made its own claims on the Constitution, Republican politicians have tended to define judicial activism in potentially conflicting ways, mixing deference frames with claims about the autonomy of law from mere politics or personal beliefs.
In this Article, I examine these two ways …
Iqbal And Empathy, Darrell A. H. Miller
Iqbal And Empathy, Darrell A. H. Miller
Faculty Scholarship
This Essay argues that empathy does and should play an important, albeit limited role, in a judge’s decision making process. Specifically, empathy is essential for making correct, principled, and unbiased judgments, because empathy is one of the few means we have to understand human motivation. Empathy is a crucial cognitive mechanism that can help compensate for common cognitive bias. As such, empathy, appropriately restricted, should be an accepted and meaningful tool for judges to use in evaluating the sufficiency of complaints, especially as they relate to Iqbal’s plausibility pleading standard.
In Defense Of Appearances: What Caperton V. Massey Should Have Said, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
In Defense Of Appearances: What Caperton V. Massey Should Have Said, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
In June of 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that an elected judge must recuse himself from a case that involves a major campaign contributor. In Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., a coal company had been hit with a $50 million jury verdict. While appealing this verdict, the company's CEO, Don Blankenship, spent $3 million to help a challenger, Brent Benjamin, who had no judicial experience, defeat the incumbent, West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw. Blankenship funded political attack ads by a political organization (And for the Sake of the Kids) that …
Judicial Elections As Popular Constitutionalism, David E. Pozen
Judicial Elections As Popular Constitutionalism, David E. Pozen
Faculty Scholarship
One of the most important recent developments in American legal theory is the burgeoning interest in "popular constitutionalism." One of the most important features of the American legal system is the selection of state judges – judges who resolve thousands of state and federal constitutional questions each year – by popular election. Although a large literature addresses each of these subjects, scholarship has rarely bridged the two. Hardly anyone has evaluated judicial elections in light of popular constitutionalism, or vice versa.
This Article undertakes that thought experiment. Conceptualizing judicial elections as instruments of popular constitutionalism, the Article aims to show, …