Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2013-2014, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2013-2014, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
SCI Papers & Reports
During the 2013-2014 academic year–corresponding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2013–the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 96% of the cases heard by the Court this Term, offered a variety of programs related to the Supreme Court, and further integrated the moot court program into the education of Georgetown Law students. A list of all SCI moot courts held in OT 2013–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.
Analogical Legal Reasoning: Theory And Evidence, Joshua C. Teitelbaum
Analogical Legal Reasoning: Theory And Evidence, Joshua C. Teitelbaum
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The paper offers a formal model of analogical legal reasoning and takes the model to data. Under the model, the outcome of a new case is a weighted average of the outcomes of prior cases. The weights capture precedential influence and depend on fact similarity (distance in fact space) and precedential authority (position in the judicial hierarchy). The empirical analysis suggests that the model is a plausible model for the time series of U.S. maritime salvage cases. Moreover, the results evince that prior cases decided by inferior courts have less influence than prior cases decided by superior courts.
Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2014 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2014 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute
Supreme Court Overviews
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.
J. Skelly Wright And The Limits Of Liberalism, Louis Michael Seidman
J. Skelly Wright And The Limits Of Liberalism, Louis Michael Seidman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This essay, written for a symposium on the life and work of United States Court of Appeals Judge J. Skelly Wright, makes four points. First, Judge Wright was an important participant in the liberal legal tradition. The tradition sought to liberate law from arid formalism and to use it as a technique for progressive reform. However, legal liberals also believed that there were limits on what judges could do–-limits rooted in both its liberalism and its legalism. Second, Wright occupied a position on the left fringe of the liberal legal tradition, and he therefore devoted much of his career to …