Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Constancy (1)
- Decision making (1)
- Empirical studies (1)
- Establishment Clause (1)
- Federal courts (1)
-
- Freedom of religion (1)
- Generality (1)
- Ideology (1)
- Judicial interpretation (1)
- Language (1)
- Legislative drafting (1)
- Legislative interpretation (1)
- Nominations (1)
- Political parties (1)
- Precedents (1)
- Predictability (1)
- Responsibility (1)
- Separation of church and state (1)
- Stare decisis (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Stare Decisis And The Rule Of Law: A Layered Approach, Jeremy Waldron
Stare Decisis And The Rule Of Law: A Layered Approach, Jeremy Waldron
Michigan Law Review
Stare decisis remains a controversial feature of the legal systems that recognize it. Some jurists argue that the doctrine is at odds with the rule of law; others argue that there are good rule-of-law arguments in favor of stare decisis. This Article considers one possible good rule-of-law argument. It suggests that we should approach stare decisis in a layered way, looking at what the rule of law requires of the various judges involved in the development of a precedent. One rule-of-law principle, the principle of constancy, counsels against lightly overturning such precedents as there are. But that is not in …
Ideology 'All The Way Down'? An Empirical Study Of Establishment Clause Decisions In The Federal Courts, Gregory C. Sisk, Michael Heise
Ideology 'All The Way Down'? An Empirical Study Of Establishment Clause Decisions In The Federal Courts, Gregory C. Sisk, Michael Heise
Michigan Law Review
As part of our ongoing empirical examination of religious liberty decisions in the lower federal courts, we studied Establishment Clause rulings by federal court of appeals and district court judges from 1996 through 2005. The powerful role of political factors in Establishment Clause decisions appears undeniable and substantial, whether celebrated as the proper integration of political and moral reasoning into constitutional judging, shrugged off as mere realism about judges being motivated to promote their political attitudes, or deprecated as a troubling departure from the aspirational ideal of neutral and impartial judging. In the context of Church and State cases in …
When Good Enough Is Not Good Enough, Karl Stampfl
When Good Enough Is Not Good Enough, Karl Stampfl
Michigan Law Review
According to conventional wisdom, the state of statutory interpretation is not strong. Its canons of construction-noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, reddendo singula singulis, and more than a few others-are a morass of Latin into which many law students and even judges have sunk. Its practitioners are unprincipled. Its doctrines are muddied. Its victims are many. In short, the system is broken-unless, of course, it is not. In The Language of Statutes: Laws and Their Interpretation, Lawrence M. Solan slices through the rhetoric, the fighting, and the law-review-article histrionics in an attempt to show that the …