Judges Commons^™

'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 …

The Rise Of Managerial Judging In International Criminal Law, Maximo Langer

ExpressO

Abstract This article puts the procedure of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in a completely new and previously unexplored light. Rejecting the predominant view of ICTY procedure as a hybrid between the adversarial system of the U.S. and the inquisitorial system of civil law jurisdictions, this article shows that ICTY procedure is best described through a third procedural model that does not fit in either of the two traditional systems. This third procedural model is close to the managerial judging system that has been adopted in U.S. civil procedure. The article then explores some of the …

Good Faith In The Cisg: Interpretation Problems In Article 7, Benedict C. Sheehy

ExpressO

ABSTRACT: This article examines the dispute concerning the meaning of Good Faith in the CISG. Although there are good reasons for arguing a more limited interpretation or more limited application of Good Faith, there are also good reasons for a broader approach. Regardless of the correct interpretation, however, practitioners and academics need to have a sense of where the actual jurisprudence is going. This article reviews every published case on Article 7 since its inception and concludes that while there is little to suggest a strong pattern is developing, a guided pattern while incorrect doctrinally is preferable to the current …

Contaminating The Verdict: The Problem Of Juror Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Are You Experienced?: Examining The Need For Specialized Ethics Rules In Patent Litigation, Benjamin J. Sodey

ExpressO

Any attorney licensed to practice before a federal district court, regardless or his or her area of specialization, may file a patent infringement suit on behalf of a client in that court. The possibility exists, therefore, for an attorney having little or no intellectual property experience to represent clients in complex patent litigation matters. Due to this, infringement defendants and their counsel may find themselves on the receiving end of a dubious patent claim brought by attorneys lacking patent law experience. This article discusses whether the existing rules governing attorney conduct, such as professional responsibility, procedural, or statutory rules, are …

Bad Judges, Geoffrey P. Miller

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

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

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 …

The Market For Justice, The "Litigation Explosion," And The "Verdict Bubble": A Closer Look At Vanishing Trials, Frederic Nelson Smalkin, Frederic Nelson Chancellor Smalkin

ExpressO

This article takes a fresh look at the increasingly discussed topic of the scarcity of civil cases reaching trial in the Article III system. The number of cases tried declined by more than one-fourth in the decade from 1989-1999, and the decline continued at about the same rate to the end of the latest year for which statistics are available, 2002, while ADR (particularly arbitrations) skyrocketed.

The authors examine the history of competing English courts (particularly Common Pleas and King's Bench) for signs that, in fact, market competition can arise among dispute-resolving bodies. They also apply economic analysis to the …

Judicial Perspectives On The Federal Sentencing Guidelines And The Goals Of Sentencing: Debunking The Myths, Michael E. O'Neill

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Mixed Signals: Reconsidering The Political Economy Of Judicial Deference To Administrative Agencies, Matthew C. Stephenson

ExpressO

This paper investigates rational choice explanations for patterns of Supreme Court decision-making with respect to the appropriate level of judicial deference to administrative agency decisions. In particular, I assess empirically the thesis that the Supreme Court expands deference when the Supreme Court is ideologically closer to the executive than to the circuit courts, and contracts deference when the opposite is true. I find little to no evidence supporting this "rational choice" theory of judicial deference. Given this surprising null finding, I offer alternative explanations for the data and suggest directions for future research.