Judges Commons^™

Judicial Selection: It's More About The Choices Than Who Does The Choosing, Honorable Lavenski R. Smith

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Impartiality In Judicial Ethics: A Jurisprudential Analysis, W. Bradley Wendel

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

My Brethren’S (Gate) Keeper? Testimony By U.S. Judges At Others’ Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings: Its Implications For Judicial Independence And Judicial Ethics, Mary Clark

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This article, prompted by the testimony of seven of Samuel Alito's then-current and former Third Circuit colleagues at his hearing to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, examines the merits of federal judges testifying at others' Supreme Court confirmation hearings. While mindful of other approaches to the question of judicial participation in other judicial appointments systems and of their comparative advantages and disadvantages, the author nevertheless concludes that judges threaten judicial independence and judicial ethics principles when they exercise power in the Article III appointments realm. It is not so much a question of judges usurping the …

The Endless Judicial Selection Debate And Why It Matters For Judicial Independence, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In this overview, I begin by describing the five different systems of state judicial selection that have evolved out of a perennial struggle to strike an optimal balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. I then explore recent developments that have intensified that struggle, before analyzing, with reference to available research, how different selection systems counter or accommodate such developments. My purpose here is not to write (another) position piece. Rather, my purpose is to step back and contextualize disputes over judicial selection with reference to the independence and accountability issues that animate them, and to isolate what we know …

When Judges Are Accused: An Initial Look At The New Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

On March 11, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the administrative policy-making body of the federal judiciary, approved the first set of nationally binding rules for dealing with accusations of misconduct by federal judges. The new rules implement recommendations made by a committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Breyer Committee found that although the judiciary has been doing a very good overall job in handling complaints against judges, the error rate in high-visibility cases is far too high.

The new regulatory regime comes into existence at a time when federal judges have been accused of …

Methods Of Judicial Selection And Their Impact On Judicial Independence, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.