Judges Commons^™

Comparing Judicial Selection Systems, Lee Epstein, Jack C. Knight, Olga Shvetsova

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Questioning Of Lower Federal Court Nominees At Senate Confirmation Hearings, William Ross

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction To The Symposium: The Judicial Process Appointments Process, Carly Van Orman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Aba's Role In Prescreening Federal Judicial Candidates: Are We Ready To Give Up On The Lawyers?, Laura E. Little

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The "Blue Slip": Enforcing The Norms Of The Judicial Confirmation Process, Brannon P. Denning

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Bush Administration And Appeals Court Nominees, Carl Tobias

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Competency Conundrum: Problems Courts Have Faced In Applying Different Standards For Competency To Be Executed, John L. Farringer, Iv

Vanderbilt Law Review

Throughout Anglo-American legal history, there has been a general agreement, based on numerous rationales, that mentally incompetent inmates should not be executed for their crimes. The recurring problem, however, is how to define "incompetence" or "insanity." Legislatures and courts have sought to provide a common- sense definition, but in practice judges must confront highly technical terminology from the ever evolving field of psychiatry. Additionally, the definition must be flexible enough to apply to a variety of cases, while being universal enough to assure that all defendants are treated fairly and equally.

At hearings to determine a prisoner's competency to be …

Judicial Jabberwocky In The Presidential Election 2000: When Law And Facts Collide With Politics, Theresa H. Hammond

Mercer Law Review

Long before the United States Constitution was ratified, Americans displayed a deep skepticism of the judiciary. Codification of extremely detailed and complex laws was the palliate to judicial activism. People believed that if the laws were all published and readily accessible, judges would have less ability to substitute their own personal values and predilections for the will of the people, established through the legislation promulgated by their chosen representatives. Hamilton's first essay on the judiciary assured New Yorkers that "the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power" and that "the liberty of the people can …

Judicial Reform And The State Of Japan's Attorney System: A Discussion Of Attorney Reform Issues And The Future Of The Judiciary, Kohei Nakabō, Yohei Suda

Washington International Law Journal

Based on the Judicial Reform Council's article "Points at Issue in Judicial Reform," this paper presents basic issues on the current status of the Japanese attorney system and areas to be addressed in judicial reform. [[Translator's Note] This Article formed the basis of Nakabō's report at the twelfth meeting of Judicial Reform Council held on February 8, 2000. It was originally published as the first of a two part paper in SERIES JUDICIAL REFORM I: [LEGAL PROFESSIONAL TRAINING; THE LAW SCHOOL CONCEPT] (2000).]

Not Interaction But Melding—The "Russian Dressing" Theory Of Emotions: An Explanation Of The Phenomenology Of Emotions And Rationality With Suggested Related Maxims For Judges And Other Legal Decision Makers, Peter Brandon Bayer

Mercer Law Review

Even after centuries of contrary philosophy and psychology, many commentators, jurisprudes, and law makers insist that emotions have no legitimate place in most legal decision making. This recalcitrance, of course, is misplaced in light of the powerful body of theory explaining that without emotions, decisions, including matters of law and policy, simply cannot be made. Judges, along with all societal actors, must disabuse themselves of the fallacious belief that emotions obstruct or obscure reason in all endeavors, particularly morality, law, and justice.

The project of truly apprehending emotions, however, requires more than appreciating that they play a crucial role in …

Why Judges Don't Like Petitions For Rehearing, Richard S. Arnold

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Petitions for en banc rehearings are rarely granted. A Senior Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit provides a history and reasoning of the rehearing process and his personal observations on those petitions and processes in today's court.

Appellate Rule 16(B): The Scope Of Review In An Appeal Based Solely Upon A Dissent In The Court Of Appeals, Thomas L. Fowler

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Objective Interpretation And Objective Meaning In Holmes And Dickerson: Interpretive Practice And Interpretive Theory, Patrick J. Kelley

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Legal Arguments In The Opinions Of Montana Territorial Chief Justice Decius S. Wade, Andrew P. Morriss

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Judges Cooperating With Scientists: A Proposal For More Effective Limits On The Federal Trial Judge's Inherent Power To Appoint Technical Advisors, Robert L. Hess, Ii

Vanderbilt Law Review

Scientifically complex cases challenge the expertise of federal trial judges.' Nonetheless, the United States Supreme Court has held that federal trial judges must take an active role in deter- mining the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed its view that the adversary system is capable of handling most scientific issues, and noted that trial judges may seek the help of third-party experts. Thus, the federal trial judge confronted with a scientifically complex case may rely on the adversaries or may seek help from a third-party expert. When faced with this choice, judges …

Conjunction And Aggregation, Saul Levmore

Michigan Law Review

This Article begins with the puzzle of why the law avoids the issue of conjunctive probability. Mathematically inclined observers might, for example, employ the "product rule," multiplying the probabilities associated with several events or requirements in order to assess a combined likelihood, but judges and lawyers seem otherwise inclined. Courts and statutes might be explicit about the manner in which multiple requirements should be combined, but they are not. Thus, it is often unclear whether a factfinder should assess if condition A was more likely than not to be present - and then go on to see whether condition B …

The Illinois Judicial Conference Symposium, Kimberly Payne Jordan

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Judge Henry Clay Caldwell, Richard S. Arnold, George C. Freeman Iii

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Independence And Responsibility Of The Federal Judiciary, Thomas I. Vanaskie

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judging And Democracy, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Terry Firma: Background Democracy And Constitutional Foundations, Frank I. Michelman

Michigan Law Review

Ages ago, I had the excellent luck to fall into a collaboration with Terrance Sandalow to produce a casebook now long forgotten. There could have been no more bracing or beneficial learning experience for a fledgling legal scholar (meaning me). What brought us together indeed was luck from my standpoint, but it was enterprise, too - the brokerage of an alert West Publishing Company editor picking up on a casual remark of mine as he made one of his regular sweeps through Harvard Law School. A novice law professor, I mentioned to him how much I admired a new essay …