Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Judges
'You'd Better Be Good': Congressional Threats Of Removal Against Federal Judges, Marc O. Degirolami
'You'd Better Be Good': Congressional Threats Of Removal Against Federal Judges, Marc O. Degirolami
ExpressO
In the attached article, I argue that congressional threats of removal against federal judges are increasing in prevalence and forcefulness and that as a result the strained relationship between the judiciary and Congress – a topic of recent attention and debate – will continue to deteriorate in the coming years. I examine two bills, the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act and House of Representatives Resolution 568 (in which Congress would disavow citation in judicial decisions to foreign law), to demonstrate this thesis.
I next ask what explains the phenomenon of congressional threats of removal, deploying first Thomas Hobbes’ state-of-nature …
Contaminating The Verdict: The Problem Of Juror Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
Contaminating The Verdict: The Problem Of Juror Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman
ExpressO
No abstract provided.
A Constitutional Defense Of Legislative History, Paul E. Mcgreal
A Constitutional Defense Of Legislative History, Paul E. Mcgreal
ExpressO
This essay sets forth an original, constitutional defense of legislative history in statutory interpretation that challenges conventional textualist wisdom. Textualists believe that the Constitution requires judges to focus on statutory text to the exclusion of legislative history. This is because only text, and not the committee reports and debates that constitute legislative history, passes through the Constitution’s law making steps of bicameralism (passage by both chambers of Congress) and presentment (delivery of the bill for the President’s signature or veto). Thus, textualists argue, only the statute’s text is enacted law, and judges ought to consider that law and nothing else. …
The Role Of Purposivism In The Delegation Of Rulemaking Authority To The Courts, Michael Rosensaft
The Role Of Purposivism In The Delegation Of Rulemaking Authority To The Courts, Michael Rosensaft
ExpressO
The courts are often used by Congress as a “political lightning rod,” when Congress cannot decide how to resolve an issue. Congress relies on administrative agencies for their expertise, and it also makes sense for Congress to delegate some rulemaking authority to the courts, relying on a court’s expertise in developing caselaw in an incremental basis. However, this authority should not be lightly implied. A court can tell that Congress has delegated rulemaking authority to it when the purpose of the statute is clear and the text is broadly worded. It thus makes sense in these cases that purposivism should …