Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (4)
- United States Supreme Court (4)
- Constitutional law (3)
- Judges (3)
- Judicial (3)
-
- Attorney (2)
- Equality before the law (2)
- Judicial opinions (2)
- Judiciary (2)
- Law (2)
- Lawyer (2)
- Legal (2)
- Moral (2)
- Plessy v. Ferguson (2)
- Precedent (2)
- Race discrimination (2)
- United States (2)
- Activist (1)
- African American (1)
- Analysis (1)
- Batson (1)
- Bench (1)
- Branches (1)
- Buck v. Bell (1)
- Case (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Civil War (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Introduction, Ronald F. Phillips
Precedent: What It Is And What It Isn't; When Do We Kiss It And When Do We Kill It?, Ruggero J. Aldisert
Precedent: What It Is And What It Isn't; When Do We Kiss It And When Do We Kill It?, Ruggero J. Aldisert
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Ethics In Legal Education: An Augmentation Of Legal Realism, Gerald R. Ferrera
Ethics In Legal Education: An Augmentation Of Legal Realism, Gerald R. Ferrera
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Milking The New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits The Peremptory Challenge On Racial Grounds In Powers V. Ohio And Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co., Bradley R. Kirk
Milking The New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits The Peremptory Challenge On Racial Grounds In Powers V. Ohio And Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co., Bradley R. Kirk
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso
Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Statutory Interpretation Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making , R. Randall Kelso
Statutory Interpretation Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making , R. Randall Kelso
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mr. Justice Brandeis And The Art Of Judicial Dissent, Melvin I. Urofsky
Mr. Justice Brandeis And The Art Of Judicial Dissent, Melvin I. Urofsky
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Putting Buck V. Bell In Scientific And Historical Context: A Response To Victoria Nourse , Edward J. Larson
Putting Buck V. Bell In Scientific And Historical Context: A Response To Victoria Nourse , Edward J. Larson
Pepperdine Law Review
In this article written for a law-review symposium in response to a presentation on the infamous 1927 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Buck v. Bell, Edward J. Larson argues that, at the time that the case was decided, eugenics was on the incline, not the decline. In the 1920s, the American scientific and medical community broadly backed eugenic remedies for various forms of mental illness and retardation. Legislatures, lawyers, and jurists took their cue from this scientific and medical consensus. Absent any question that the statute at issue in Buck v. Bell was validly passed by the Virginia legislature or …
A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald
A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald
Pepperdine Law Review
A response to the article "Plessy v. Ferguson and the Anti-Canon," by Akhil Amar, published in the November 2011 issue of the "Pepperdine Law Review," is presented. Topics include an examination of Justice Henry Billings Brown's decision in the case, the constitutionality of segregating U.S. citizens by race, and the impact of public opinion on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Plessy V. Ferguson And The Anti-Canon, Akhil Reed Amar
Plessy V. Ferguson And The Anti-Canon, Akhil Reed Amar
Pepperdine Law Review
The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which dealt with the constitutionality of racial segregation in the U.S. Topics include the application of precedent in controversial U.S. Supreme Court cases, when the U.S. Constitution can overrule a court decision, and dissenting judicial opinions.
Coming To Terms With Dred Scott: A Response To Daniel A. Farber, Paul Finkelman
Coming To Terms With Dred Scott: A Response To Daniel A. Farber, Paul Finkelman
Pepperdine Law Review
When thinking about Dred Scott, the issue is not how do we “rehabilitate” the opinion. The goal of scholarship here is to understand the opinion, place it in the context of its own time, and explain its enduring significance. After that, we may praise or damn it, and rehabilitate it or condemn it. No one today likes the Dred Scott opinion or the result. But, this article argues that Professor Daniel A. Farber is so incensed by the opinion that he vastly overstates its historical significance including incorrectly blaming Chief Justice Taney for causing the Civil War. This article rejects …