Judges Commons^™

Review: Robert L. Carter, A Matter Of Law: A Memoir Of Struggle In The Cause Of Equal Rights, Kevin D. Brown

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Kentucky 2006 Judicial Elections, William H. Fortune, Al Cross

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article is a short report on the impact of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White on the 2006 Kentucky judicial campaigns and elections. The series of events leading up to the 2006 elections can be traced to at least 1988.

While the Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee (KJCCC) cannot claim a great impact on Kentucky's 2006 judicial elections, the authors of this Article believe that the committee played a positive role. For the most part, judicial candidates campaigned in a dignified and ethical manner, and refrained from running on issues that might strike a chord with the electorate. Judicial …

Judges' Pay: A Chasm Far Worse Than Realized, And Worsening, Roy A. Schotland

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For our state judges today, let us put aside what might be thought their appropriate "reward" compared to the "reward" for private-sector lawyers. Of course judges earn less than they would in private practice, and of course judges enjoy "rewards" other than salaries. What is surprising is how severe the gap is between the pay for judges and for the private bar-and, strikingly, the gap between the pay for judges and for other public employees. What is deeply disturbing, indeed dangerous, is how the gaps are worsening. Our compensation for judges is so low, that by reducing the caliber and …

Process Theory, Majoritarianism, And The Original Understanding, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Radicals in Robes, Cass Sunstein posits that there are four primary approaches to constitutional interpretation: perfectionism, majoritarianism, minimalism, and fundamentalism.' The purpose of his eloquent and compelling book is twofold: Sunstein argues for minimalism, an approach that he contends makes most sense for America today; and with even greater force, Sunstein argues against fundamentalism, which he finds "wrong, dangerous, radical, and occasionally hypocritical."' The "Radicals in Robes" who are the targets of Sunstein's book are judges who embrace fundamentalism, which, in his view, embodies "the views of the extreme wing of [the] Republican Party."'

In Securing Constitutional Democracy: The …

Double-Consciousness In Constitutional Adjudication, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Constitutional theorists are familiar with epistemic and consequentialist reasons why judges might allow their decision making to be shaped by strongly held public opinion. The epistemic approach treats public opinion as an expert indicator, while the consequentialistapproach counsels judges to compromise legally correct interpretations so as not to antagonize a hostile public. But there is also a third reason, which we can think ofas constitutive. In limited circumstances, the fact that the public strongly holds a given view can be one of the factors that together constitute the correct answer to a constitutional question. In those circumstances, what the public …

What Statutes Mean: Interpretive Lessons From Positive Theories Of Communication And Legislation, Cheryl Boudreau, Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. Mccubbins, Daniel B. Rodriguez

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.