Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Breyer Committee Report (1)
- Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (1)
- Committees (1)
- Congress (1)
- Copyright; Intellectual Property; Statutory Interpretation (1)
-
- Correctional policy (1)
- Corrections (1)
- Criminal justice reform (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Federal Courts (1)
- Federal Judges (1)
- Federal Judicial Misconduct Statutes (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Judicial Conduct (1)
- Judicial Discipline (1)
- Judicial Ethics (1)
- Judicial Misconduct (1)
- Judicial System (1)
- Kravitz (Mark R.) (1)
- Language (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Legislative drafting (1)
- Mass incarceration (1)
- Motions (1)
- National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal (1)
- Prison (1)
- Public comments (1)
- Reform (1)
- Rulemaking (1)
- Rules Enabling Act (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Proposed Amendments To The Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules: Comments And Suggestions, Arthur D. Hellman
Proposed Amendments To The Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules: Comments And Suggestions, Arthur D. Hellman
Testimony
In 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States – the administrative policy-making body of the federal judiciary – approved a revised set of rules for handling complaints of misconduct or disability on the part of federal judges. Moving away from the decentralizing approach of the pre-2008 Illustrative Rules, the new rules were made binding on all of the federal judicial circuits.
On September 2, 2014, the Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability (Conduct Committee) issued a set of draft amendments to the Rules. The announcement invited comments on the proposed amendments. This statement was submitted in response to …
Revising Civil Rule 56: Judge Mark R. Kravitz And The Rules Enabling Act, Edward H. Cooper
Revising Civil Rule 56: Judge Mark R. Kravitz And The Rules Enabling Act, Edward H. Cooper
Articles
This contribution uses the history of amending Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “Summary Judgment,” to pay tribute to Mark R. Kravitz and to the Rules Enabling Act process itself. The three central examples involve discretion to deny summary judgment despite the lack of a genuine dispute as to any material fact, the choice whether to prescribe a detailed “point–counterpoint” procedure for presenting and opposing the motion, and the effect of failure to respond to a motion in one of the modes prescribed by the rule. These topics are intrinsically important. The ways in which the Civil Rules Advisory Committee …
The Growth Of Incarceration In The United States: Exploring Causes And Consequences, Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western, F. Stevens Redburn
The Growth Of Incarceration In The United States: Exploring Causes And Consequences, Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western, F. Stevens Redburn
Publications and Research
After decades of stability from the 1920s to the early 1970s, the rate of incarceration in the United States more than quadrupled in the past four decades. The Committee on the Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration in the United States was established under the auspices of the National Research Council, supported by the National Institute of Justice and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, to review evidence on the causes and consequences of these high incarceration rates and the implications of this evidence for public policy.
Our work encompassed research on, and analyses of, the …
Joint Works Under United States Copyright Law: Judicial Legislation Through Statutory Misinterpretation, Michael B. Landau
Joint Works Under United States Copyright Law: Judicial Legislation Through Statutory Misinterpretation, Michael B. Landau
Faculty Publications By Year
No abstract provided.
Bond V. United States: Concurring In The Judgment, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Bond V. United States: Concurring In The Judgment, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Bond v. United States presented the deep constitutional question of whether a treaty can increase the legislative power of Congress. Unfortunately, a majority of the Court managed to sidestep the constitutional issue by dodgy statutory interpretation. But the other three Justices—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—all wrote important concurrences in the judgment, grappling with the constitutional issues presented. In particular, Justice Scalia’s opinion (joined by Justice Thomas), is a masterpiece, eloquently demonstrating that Missouri v. Holland is wrong and should be overruled: a treaty cannot increase the legislative power of Congress.