Judges Commons^™

A Judge Never Writes More Freely: A Separate-Opinions Citation-Network Approach To Assessing Judicial Ideology, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

What do judges really care about? Scholars have used various methods to identify a judge’s policy preferences. The standard method in political science, called the Martin-Quinn score, counts a judge’s votes for conservative or liberal outcomes. But judges don’t just vote, they give reasons in written opinions. Reason-giving is not only part of the tradition of common-law decision making but is also central to rule-of-law ideals, concerns that are not the focus most empirical methodologies. What’s more, the reasons a judge gives for reaching a conclusion provide powerful evidence for what the judge herself cares about. That is especially the …

The Difficulty Of Discerning The Effect Of Neuroscience: A Peer Commentary Of Shen Et Al. 2018, John B. Meixner Jr.

Scholarly Works

Neuroscience is often considered to have a certain ‘seductive allure’.1 Its mystique should not besurprising. Seeking to understand the network of nearly 100 billion neurons that make up the human brain, neuroscience examines some of the most difficult questions imaginable. And yet, it is also a deeply personal discipline—questions like, ‘How do we create memories?’ and ‘What causes emotions?’ touch on experiences shared by all people.

Does the mystique of neuroscience cause individuals to ascribe undue weight to neuroscientific findings, or assume that neuroimages indicate research quality? Over the past decade, a literature has sprung up seeking to answer questions …

Against Administrative Judges, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

The single largest cadre of federal adjudicators goes largely ignored by scholars, policymakers, courts, and even litigating parties. These Administrative Judges or “AJs,” often confused with well-known federal Administrative Law Judges or “ALJs,” operate by the thousands in numerous federal agencies. Yet unlike ALJs, the significantly more numerous AJs preside over less formal hearings and have no significant statutory protections to preserve their impartiality. The national press has recently called attention to the alleged unfairness of certain ALJ proceedings, and regulated parties have successfully enjoined agencies’ use of ALJs. While fixes are necessary for ALJ adjudication, any solution that ignores …

An Empirical Research Agenda For The Forensic Sciences, Jonathan J. Koehler, John B. Meixner Jr.

Scholarly Works

After the National Academy of Sciences issued a stunning report in 2009 on the unscientific state of many forensic science subfields, forensic science has undergone internal and external scrutiny that it had managed to avoid for decades. Although some reform efforts are underway, forensic science writ large has yet to embrace and settle upon an empirical research agenda that addresses knowledge gaps pertaining to the reliability of its methods. Our paper addresses this problem by proposing a preliminary set of fourteen empirical studies for the forensic sciences. Following a brief discussion of the courtroom treatment of forensic science evidence, we …

Decision Making And The Law: Truth Barriers, Jonathan J. Koehler, John B. Meixner Jr.

Scholarly Works

Reaching an accurate outcome is a central goal of the American trial. But structural features of the legal system, in combination with the cognitive shortcomings of legal actors, hinder the search for truth. Regarding the legal system, various rules and policies restrict decision makers’ access to evidence, violate the laws of probability, and limit the evidentiary concerns that may be considered on appeal. Regarding legal actors, informational deficits (particularly regarding scientific and statistical evidence) and cognitive biases of police investigators, witnesses (lay and expert), attorneys, judges, and jurors pose serious obstacles. We conclude by suggesting that research in judgment and …

Civility And Collegiality—Unreasonable Judicial Expectations For Lawyers As Officers Of The Court?, Lonnie T. Brown

Scholarly Works

It is a well-settled and often-recited fact that lawyers are “officers of the court.” That title, however, is notoriously hortatory and devoid of meaning. Nevertheless, the Eleventh Circuit recently took the somewhat unprecedented step of utilizing the officer-of-the-court label to, in effect, sanction an attorney for the purportedly uncivil act of failing to provide defendant attorneys with pre-suit notice. While the author applauds the court’s desire to place greater emphasis on lawyer-to-lawyer collegiality as a component of officer-of-the-court status, the uncertainty the decision creates in terms of a lawyer’s role will potentially force litigators to compromise important client-centered duties. This …

Transtemporal Separation Of Powers In The Law Of Precedent, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

The rule of stare decisis creates a presumption that a court’s ruling on a legal question remains binding in later decisions by the same court or hierarchically inferior courts. This presumption promotes stability in the law and protects reliance interests. Decisions that narrowly construe or overrule prior opinions can therefore seem like unprincipled threats to the rule of law.

This article seeks to highlight some countervailing themes in the case law, showing that stability and the protection of reliance interests are not the exclusive concerns underlying the law of precedent. The relevant doctrine attempts to balance these objectives with competing …

Samantar And Executive Power, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

This essay examines Samantar v. Yousuf in the context of broader debate about the relationship between federal common law and executive power. Samantar represents simply the latest effort by the Executive Branch to literally shape the meaning of law through a process referred to in the literature as “executive lawmaking.” While traditional accounts of executive lawmaking typically have treated the idea as a singular concept, Samantar demonstrates the need to bifurcate the concept into at least two different categories: acts of executive lawmaking decoupled from pending litigation and acts of executive lawmaking taken expressly in response to litigation. As Samantar …

May It Please The Senate: An Empirical Analysis Of The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Of Supreme Court Nominees, 1939-2009, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Scholarly Works

This paper examines the questions asked and answers given by every Supreme Court nominee who has appeared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee since 1939. In doing so, it uses a new dataset developed by the authors. This database, which provides a much-needed empirical foundation for scholarship in emerging areas of constitutional law and political science, captures all of the statements made at the hearings and codes these comments by issue area, subissue area, party of the appointing president, and party of the questioning senator. The dataset allows us to quantify for the fist time such things as which …

Wilderness, The Courts And The Effect Of Politics On Judicial Decisionmaking, Peter A. Appel

Scholarly Works

Empirical analyses of cases from federal courts have attempted to determine the effect of judges’ political ideology on their decisions. This question holds interest for scholars from many disciplines. Investigating judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies should provide strong evidence on the question of political influence because applicable rules of judicial deference to administrative decisions ought to lead judges to reach politically neutral results. Yet several studies have found a strong correlation between results in these cases and proxies for political ideology. Cases involving the interpretation of environmental law have been of particular interest as a subset of …

Aliens On The Bench: Lessons In Identity, Race And Politics From The First "Modern" Supreme Court, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

Every time a Supreme Court vacancy is announced, the media and the legal academy snap to attention. Even the general public takes note; in contrast to most of the decisions issued by the Court, a majority of Americans are aware of and have opinions about the men and women who are nominated to sit on it. Moreover, public opinion about the nominee has a strong influence on a senator's vote for or against the candidate. If the confirmation hearing held before the Senate Judiciary Committee is largely an empty ritual, why do so many people seem so enthralled by it? …

Judge Bell And Professional Courage, Larry D. Thompson

Scholarly Works

This article eulogizes Judge Griffin B. Bell, with an emphasis on the importance of professional standards in the legal field.

"I'M Sorry, I Can't Answer That": Supreme Court Confirmations, Judicial Independence, And Positive Legal Scholarship, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

The United States Constitution grants to the Senate the duty to provide its “advice and consent” to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. Just how senators should exercise that duty, however, is deeply contested. Much of the dispute about the Senate's role involves the appropriate scope of questions the senators should ask, and what nominees should be expected to answer, at the confirmation hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Opponents of vigorous senatorial questioning argue that such questioning infringes on the independence of the judiciary; proponents argue that the nominees' failure to answer probing questions hinders the Senate's constitutional …

The State Of Judiciary: A Corporate Perspective, Larry D. Thompson

Scholarly Works

The rule of law depends on highly talented, independent judges who conscientiously strive to ensure that the law is consistently applied in a principled and predictable manner This Essay addresses two potential threats to judicial independence and the rule of law that we believe warrant special attention at this time. First, inadequate judicial salaries pose a threat to the quality and independence of the judiciary. Judges' real pay has declined substantially over the past generation, even as the compensation of other callings within the legal profession has risen dramatically. This growing disparity in pay has prompted an increasing number of …

The Rehnquist Court: A "By The Numbers" Retrospective, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over the U.S. Supreme Court for nineteen years, longer than any other Chief Justice in the 20th century. Despite this longevity, however, there is little consensus on just what the legacy of the Rehnquist Court is. Was the Rehnquist Court a restrained Court that embraced a limited, text-based reading of the Constitution? Or was it a much more aggressive Court, responsible for a resurgence of conservative judicial activism? Is it best epitomized by the “swaggering confidence” that put a President in office, or the cautious minimalism that disappointed its conservative supporters by failing …

Defining Democracy: The Supreme Court's Campaign Finance Dilemma, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

On December 10, 2003 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in McConnell v. FEC. In McConnell, the Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA"). A divided Court, in a deeply fractured decision in which six justices wrote individual opinions, upheld the major provisions of the legislation. Yet despite the almost 300 pages of reasoning provided by the Court, and a voluminous record developed by the district court, the Justices could not agree on what purportedly is the central issue in campaign finance law: whether the challenged regulations were necessary …

Dissenting Opinions: In The Georgia Supreme Court, R. Perry Sentell Jr.

Scholarly Works

Under our system of justice, each jurisdiction necessarily evolves its own distinct tradition of judicial dissent. That evolution's impetus, history, pattern, and results all converge in an informative profile--affording yet another means of studying a state's highest appellate court. A dissent profile of the Georgia Supreme Court thus offers an additional evaluative view of the state's most important judicial cathedral.

Juristic Giants: A Georgia Study In Reputation, R. Perry Sentell Jr.

Scholarly Works

In 1990, Judge Richard Posner published CARDOZO: A STUDY IN REPUTATION. A deceptively small volume (only 156 pages), the book purported to delineate and dissect the facets of circumstance, achievement, and character accounting for Benjamin Cardozo's reputation for "greatness." Treating such indicia (both tangible and intangible) as Cardozo's "person," "philosophy," "technique," and "contributions," Posner also sought a handle for "measuring the magnitude" of reputation itself. He hit, of course, upon the modern mechanical mainstay of computerization: a finger-tip presentation of the frequency with which Cardozo's name appears in other judicial opinions.

An American Original, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

This is one of many articles tributing Judge Myron H. Bright in recognition of thirty years of service on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This article describes Professor Carlson's relationship with Judge Bright and details Judge Bright's career.

Judge Friendly And The Law Of Securities Regulation: The Creation Of A Judicial Reputation, Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

Few judges are more revered than the late Henry J. Friendly, a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1959 to 1986. Leading jurists and scholars have described him as "one of our wisest judges," "a legend in his own time," "the most remarkable legal mind of his generation," "the pre-eminent appellate judge of his era," and "the most distinguished judge in this country during his years on the bench."

Are great judicial reputations-like great literary and scientific reputations- also shaped by contingencies? Or does the legal profession for some reason stand apart? This …

The Georgia Jury And Negligence: The View From The Trenches, R. Perry Sentell Jr.

Scholarly Works

This is the third part of a project devoted to analyzing the Georgia negligence jury. The project employed as its original point of departure the extensive Chicago Jury Study of the 1960s, directed by Chicago Law Professor Harry Kalven, Jr. That Study's immortality derives principally from its famous first premise: Meaningful evaluation of the jury system must originate from within the system itself. That premise propelled Professor Kalven through a massive national survey of trial judges. The judges' responses, under Kalven's insightful analysis, yielded an unprecedented profile of the American jury. In foundational fashion, those responses indelibly etched into legal …

Justice Blackmun, Federalism, And Separation Of Powers, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

On June 8, 1970, Harry A. Blackmun took his seat on the Supreme Court bench. Few then foresaw that, in the ensuing twenty-three terms of the Court, Justice Blackmun would make contributions to American law that rank no less than monumental. Justice Blackmun has become best known for his landmark opinion in Roe v. Wade and his increasingly pointed defense of libertarian and egalitarian values. During his long tenure on the Court, however, Justice Blackmun also quietly has shaped the law of constitutional federalism and separation of powers.

This reality first came to my attention in 1987, when I received …

The Georgia Jury And Negligence: The View From The Bench, R. Perry Sentell Jr.

Scholarly Works

It is virtually impossible to think seriously about torts and not think of negligence; it is virtually impossible to think seriously about negligence and not think of the jury. The staples of the common-law negligence system--striking a liability profile, and assessing a causal loss--are the staples of the civil jury province. The historic inevitableness of the fact, however, has never put the matter beyond reflection, scrutiny, reconsideration, challenge, nor controversy. Assuredly, controversy.

Judicial Recusation In The Fedearl Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn

Scholarly Works

The much debated problem of the qualification of judges has two aspects: First, the general qualification of an individual to be a judge and, second, his qualification to be a judge in a specific case. The second aspect, the qualification to be a judge in a specific case, has recently become the object of special attention. The problem has been stated with cogence and breadth by Mr. Justice Frankfurter. The breath of this state lies in the demand that the administration of justice should not only be disinterested in fact but should also reasonably appear to be so. The objective …