Judges Commons^™

Justices Could Do Well To Heed A Father’S Example, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

At What Is The Supreme Court Comparatively Advantaged?, R. George Wright

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pledge, Promise, Or Commit: New York's Tenuous Limitations On Judicial Campaign Speech, Noah Hertz-Bunzl

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Calmly To Poise The Scales Of Justice: A History Of The Courts Of The District Of Columbia Circuit, Jeffrey Morris, Chris Rohmann

Jeffrey B. Morris

No abstract provided.

Lower Court Compliance With Supreme Court Remands, Elise Borochoff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2012-2013, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the 2012-2013 academic year–corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2012–the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 100% of the cases heard by the Court this Term, offered a variety of programs related to the Supreme Court, and hosted several delegations of foreign visitors. A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2012–arranged by argument sitting and date of moot and including the name and affiliation of each advocate and the number of student observers–follows the narrative portion of this report.

Holmes And The Common Law: A Jury's Duty, Matthew P. Cline

Matthew P Cline

The notion of a small group of peers whose responsibility it is to play a part in determining the outcome of a trial is central to the common conception of the American legal system. Memorialized in the Constitution of the United States as a fundamental right, and in the national consciousness as the proud, if begrudged, duty of all citizens, juries are often discussed, but perhaps not always understood. Whatever misunderstandings have come to be, certainly many of them sprang from the juxtaposition of jury and judge. Why do we have both? How are their responsibilities divided? Who truly decides …

Transparency, Independence And Diversity: Does The United States Have It Better?-A Comparative Analysis Of The Process Of Appointment Of Judges To The Supreme Court In The United States And India., Varun Vaish

Varun Vaish

The rise of legal realism has made it manifestly clear that the background and worldview of judges influence cases.This is evidenced in the United States where the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary is believed to be, at least in some measure, predicated upon the proximity of the political ideology of the judge with that of the appointing party. This influence is acknowledged, questioned and somewhat mitigated against by the process of appointment wherein the Senate ratifies the president’s choice. However the lack of acknowledgement of this influence and its consequent securitization, in the appointment of judges is where …

Dedicatory Address: Act Well Your Part: Therein All Honor Lies , William H. Rehnquist

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chief Justice Roberts' Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory Magarian

Gregory P. Magarian

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate under the Taxing Clause. Numerous academic and popular commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his political courage and institutional pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. The essay contends that the opinion is, in two distinct senses, fundamentally …

Foreword: Supreme Court Narratives: Law, History, And Journalism, James F. Simon

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Why Justice Kennedy's Opinion In Windsor Short-Changed Same-Sex Couples, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision in United States v. Windsor—invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act—made the same mistake as his decision in Lawrence v. Texas: it relied upon abstract notions of ‘liberty’ rather than the text-based guarantee of equality. Same-sex couples deserve more. They are entitled to equal treatment under the United States Constitution. Bans on same-sex marriage cannot be supported by a rational state interest, and instead constitute impermissible discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. By issuing a doctrinally muddled decision that included discussions of federalism, liberty, due process, and equal protection, Justice Kennedy missed an …

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2013 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

President John Adams And Four Chief Justices: An Essay For James F. Simon, R.B. Bernstein

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Great Leaders, L.A. Powe Jr.

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Affirmative Action, Justice Kennedy, And The Virtues Of The Middle Ground, Allen K. Rostron

Faculty Works

When the Supreme Court hears arguments this fall about the constitutionality of affirmative action policies at the University of Texas, attention will be focused once again on Justice Anthony Kennedy. With the rest of the Court split between a bloc of four reliably liberal jurists and an equally solid cadre of four conservatives, the spotlight regularly falls on Kennedy, the swing voter that each side in every closely divided and ideologically charged case desperately hopes to attract. Critics condemn Kennedy for having an unprincipled, capricious, and self-aggrandizing style of decision-making. Though he is often decisive in the sense of casting …

The Right To Plea Bargain With Competent Counsel After Cooper And Frye: Is The Supreme Court Making The Ordinary Criminal Process Too Long, Too Expensive, And Unpredictable In Pursuit Of Perfect Justice, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

In Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of criminal defendants who were deprived of a favorable plea offer because of their lawyers’ professional lapses. In dissent, Justice Scalia complained that “[t]he ordinary criminal process has become too long, too expensive, and unpredictable,” because of the Court’s criminal procedure jurisprudence; that plea bargaining is “the alternative in which...defendants have sought relief,” and that the two new decisions on the Sixth Amendment right to effective representation in plea bargaining would add to the burden on the criminal process. This essay examines several aspects of …

Oasis Or Mirage: The Supreme Court's Thirst For Dictionaries In The Rehnquist And Roberts Eras, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s use of dictionaries, virtually non-existent before 1987, has dramatically increased during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court eras to the point where as many as one-third of statutory decisions invoke dictionary definitions. The increase is linked to the rise of textualism and its intense focus on ordinary meaning. This Article explores the Court’s new dictionary culture in depth from empirical and doctrinal perspectives. We find that while textualist justices are heavy dictionary users, purposivist justices invoke dictionary definitions with comparable frequency. Further, dictionary use overall is strikingly ad hoc and subjective. We demonstrate how the Court’s patterns of …

More Law Than Politics: The Chief, The “Mandate,” Legality, And Statesmanship, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This chapter in a forthcoming book on NFIB v. Sebelius asks whether the various parts of Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion on the minimum coverage provision are legally justifiable. I focus on what Roberts decided, not why he decided it that way.

Law is fully adequate to explain the Chief Justice’s vote to uphold the minimum coverage provision as within the scope of Congress’s tax power. Roberts embraced the soundest constitutional understanding of the Taxing Clause. He also showed fidelity to the law by applying—and not just giving lip service to—the deeply entrenched presumption of constitutionality that judges are supposed to …