Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Judicial elections (3)
- Judicial independence (3)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Courts (2)
- Judge (2)
-
- Judges (2)
- Judicial selection (2)
- Politics (2)
- State supreme courts (2)
- Administrative law (1)
- Agencies (1)
- Campaign contributions (1)
- Campaign funds (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Comparative constitutional law (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitution Article III (1)
- Constitutional theory and design; judicial review; dialogical constitutionalism; comparative law; courts (1)
- Counsel (1)
- Court (1)
- Court systems design (1)
- Decision (1)
- Deliberative democracy (1)
- Dialogical (1)
- Elections (1)
- Environmental (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Federal Judicial Misconduct Statute (1)
- Fifth amendment (1)
- Film (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Federal And State Judicial Selection In An Interest Group Perspective, Rafael Gely, Michael E. Solimine
Federal And State Judicial Selection In An Interest Group Perspective, Rafael Gely, Michael E. Solimine
Faculty Publications
The literature on judicial selection systems has given considerable attention to the role that politicians and their parties - through their legislative roles - have played in the adoption and operation of these judicial selection systems. Less attention, however, has been given to both the effect that interest groups, broadly defined, have in the creation and implementation of judicial selection systems and the effect that these systems have on the strategies adopted by interest groups to accomplish their goals. This Article seeks to fill this gap. Using the framework advanced by William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner in their …
Impeaching A Federal Judge: Some Lessons From History, Arthur D. Hellman
Impeaching A Federal Judge: Some Lessons From History, Arthur D. Hellman
Testimony
In August 2014, Federal District Judge Mark Fuller was arrested on a charge of misdemeanor battery after his wife called 911 from an Atlanta hotel room and told the operator, “He’s beating on me.” Judge Fuller has agreed to enter a pre-trial diversion program; if he completes the program, the criminal case against him will be dismissed. But Judge Fuller may face other consequences. The Acting Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit has initiated proceedings under the federal judicial misconduct statute. And some members of Congress and editorial writers have said that if Judge Fuller does not resign from the …
Unmasking Judicial Extremism, Carl Tobias
Unmasking Judicial Extremism, Carl Tobias
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Brief Of The Conference Of Chief Justices As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2009), Roy A. Schotland
Brief Of The Conference Of Chief Justices As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2009), Roy A. Schotland
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Deliberative Democracy And Weak Courts: Constitutional Design In Nascent Democracies, Edsel F. Tupaz
Deliberative Democracy And Weak Courts: Constitutional Design In Nascent Democracies, Edsel F. Tupaz
Edsel F Tupaz
This Article addresses the question of constitutional design in young and transitional democracies. It argues for the adoption of a “weak” form of judicial review, as opposed to “strong” review which typifies much of contemporary adjudication. It briefly describes how the dialogical strain of deliberative democratic theory might well constitute the normative predicate for systems of weak review. In doing so, the Article draws from various judicial practices, from European supranational tribunals to Canadian courts and even Indian jurisprudence. The Article concludes with the suggestion that no judicial apparatus other than the weak structure of judicial review can better incite …
The Rule Of Law Is Dead! Long Live The Rule Of Law!, Keith J. Bybee
The Rule Of Law Is Dead! Long Live The Rule Of Law!, Keith J. Bybee
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
Polls show that a significant proportion of the public considers judges to be political. This result holds whether Americans are asked about Supreme Court justices, federal judges, state judges, or judges in general. At the same time, a large majority of the public also believes that judges are fair and impartial arbiters, and this belief also applies across the board. In this paper, I consider what this half-law-half-politics understanding of the courts means for judicial legitimacy and the public confidence on which that legitimacy rests. Drawing on the Legal Realists, and particularly on the work of Thurman Arnold, I argue …
Are Appointed Judges Strategic Too?, Joanna Shepherd
Are Appointed Judges Strategic Too?, Joanna Shepherd
Faculty Articles
The conventional wisdom among many legal scholars is that judicial independence can best be achieved with an appointive judiciary; judicial elections turn judges into politicians, threatening judicial autonomy. Yet the original supporters of judicial elections successfully eliminated the appointive systems of many states by arguing that judges who owed their jobs to politicians could never be truly independent. Because the judiciary could function as a check and balance on the other governmental branches only if it truly were independent of them, the reformers reasoned that only popular elections could ensure a truly independent judiciary. Using a data set of virtually …
Money, Politics, And Impartial Justice, Joanna Shepherd
Money, Politics, And Impartial Justice, Joanna Shepherd
Faculty Articles
A centuries-old controversy asks whether judicial elections are inconsistent with impartial justice. The debate is especially important because more than 90 percent of the United States’ judicial business is handled by state courts, and approximately nine in ten of all state court judges face the voters in some type of election. Using a stunning new data set of virtually all state supreme court decisions from 1995 to 1998, this paper provides empirical evidence that elected state supreme court judges routinely adjust their rulings to attract votes and campaign money. I find that judges who must be reelected by Republican voters, …
When Is Lying Illegal? When Should It Be? A Critical Analysis Of The Federal False Statements Act, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 111 (2009), Steven R. Morrison
When Is Lying Illegal? When Should It Be? A Critical Analysis Of The Federal False Statements Act, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 111 (2009), Steven R. Morrison
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
United States V. Leveto, Jennifer Steward
Symposium: Supreme Court Review, Symposium Foreword, Mitchell N. Berman
Symposium: Supreme Court Review, Symposium Foreword, Mitchell N. Berman
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Observations On Leadership: Moral And Otherwise, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 159 (2009), William Arthur Wines
Observations On Leadership: Moral And Otherwise, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 159 (2009), William Arthur Wines
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Cross-Examining Film, Jessica Silbey
Cross-Examining Film, Jessica Silbey
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Harris holds that a Georgia police officer did not violate a fleeing suspect's Fourth Amendment rights when he caused the suspect's car to crash. The court's decision relies almost entirely on the filmed version of the high-speed police chase taken from a "dash-cam," a video camera mounted on the dashboard of the pursuing police cruiser. The Supreme Court said that in light of the contrary stories told by the opposing parties to the lawsuit, the only story to be believed was that told by the video. In Scott v. Harris, the court fell …
Ripe Standing Vines And The Jurisprudential Tasting Of Matured Legal Wines – And Law & Bananas: Property And Public Choice In The Permitting Process, Donald J. Kochan
Ripe Standing Vines And The Jurisprudential Tasting Of Matured Legal Wines – And Law & Bananas: Property And Public Choice In The Permitting Process, Donald J. Kochan
Donald J. Kochan
From produce to wine, we only consume things when they are ready. The courts are no different. That concept of “readiness” is how courts address cases and controversies as well. Justiciability doctrines, particularly ripeness, have a particularly important role in takings challenges to permitting decisions. The courts largely hold that a single permit denial does not give them enough information to evaluate whether the denial is in violation of law. As a result of this jurisprudential reality, regulators with discretion have an incentive to use their power to extract rents from those that need their permission. Non-justiciability of permit denials …
The Missouri Plan In National Perspective, Stephen Ware
The Missouri Plan In National Perspective, Stephen Ware
Stephen Ware