Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Alabama v. Holder (1)
- Arizona v. United States (1)
- Article III (1)
- Circuit effect (1)
- Competing values based on state connections (1)
-
- Diverse geographic representation for judicial selection (1)
- Diversity jurisdiction (1)
- Equality (1)
- Experiential bias (1)
- Fair judicial system (1)
- Federalism and geography (1)
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (1)
- Geographic identity (1)
- Geographical bias (1)
- Group equality principle (1)
- Grutter v. Bollinger (1)
- Identity traits creating a bias (1)
- Individual equality principle (1)
- Judicial objectivity (1)
- Preferential treatment based on geographic identity (1)
- Prejudiced views affecting judges’ decisions (1)
- Race and the law (1)
- Racial bias (1)
- Racial identity (1)
- Racial minorities in court (1)
- Shelby County (1)
- Trayvon Martin (1)
- Unbiased judges (1)
- Unconscious bias affecting fairness (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Judges
The Dimensions Of Judicial Impartiality, Charles Gardner Geyh
The Dimensions Of Judicial Impartiality, Charles Gardner Geyh
Florida Law Review
Scholars have traditionally analyzed judicial impartiality piecemeal, in disconnected debates on discrete topics. As a consequence, current understandings of judicial impartiality are balkanized and muddled. This Article seeks to reconceptualize judicial impartiality comprehensively, across contexts. In an era when “we are all legal realists now,” perfect impartiality—the complete absence of bias or prejudice—is at most an ideal; “impartial enough” has, of necessity, become the realistic goal. Understanding when imperfectly impartial is nonetheless impartial enough is aided by conceptualizing judicial impartiality in three distinct dimensions: a procedural dimension, in which impartiality affords parties a fair hearing; a political dimension, in which …
Judicial Logrolling, F. Andrew Hessick, Jathan P. Mclaughlin
Judicial Logrolling, F. Andrew Hessick, Jathan P. Mclaughlin
Florida Law Review
In the federal judicial system, multiple judges hear cases on appeal. Although assigning cases to multiple judges provides a number of benefits, it also generates the potential for conflict. Because each judge has his own set of preferences and values, judges on appellate panels often disagree with each other. Judges currently resolve these disagreements by filing separate opinions or drafting compromise opinions. A different way to resolve these disagreements is to allow vote trading across cases. Scholars and judges have condemned this practice, however, and judges have insisted that it does not occur.
This Article argues that the blanket condemnation …
Federalism, Diversity, Equality, And Article Iii Judges: Geography, Identity, And Bias, Sharon E. Rush
Federalism, Diversity, Equality, And Article Iii Judges: Geography, Identity, And Bias, Sharon E. Rush
UF Law Faculty Publications
Each individual has a background, and that background shapes the individual’s views about life, creating an inevitable form of bias referred to as “experiential bias.” Experiential bias is shaped by many identity traits, including, among others, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion and even geography. The geographic identity of state judges and their potential unfair experiential bias is the common justification for federal court diversity jurisdiction. But experiential bias is inescapable, affecting everyone who's ever had an experience, and is generally not unfair, as demonstrated by most studies regarding the "fairness" justification for diversity jurisdiction. More recently, Justice O’Connor connected racial …