Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Ambition (1)
- Anthony M. Kennedy (1)
- Aspiration (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional law & philosophy (1)
-
- Constitutive constitutional theory (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- H. L. A. Hart (1)
- Hallows Lecture (1)
- Individual rights (1)
- Judicial decision-making (1)
- Judicial decisionmaking (1)
- Judicial lawmaking (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Justice Kennedy (1)
- Law (1)
- Liberty (1)
- Moral philosophy (1)
- Natural Rights (1)
- Oliver Wendell Holmes (1)
- Partisan bias (1)
- Principled positivism (1)
- Principles (1)
- Ronald Dworkin (1)
- Rules (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Warren Court (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Replaying The Past: Roles For Emotion In Judicial Invocations Of Legislative History, And Precedent, Emily Kidd White
Replaying The Past: Roles For Emotion In Judicial Invocations Of Legislative History, And Precedent, Emily Kidd White
Articles & Book Chapters
Legal reasoning in the common law tradition requires judges to draw on concepts, and examples that are meant to resonate with a particular emotional import and operate in judicial reasoning as though they do. Judicial applications of constitutional rights are regularly interpreted by reference to past violations (either through precedent, contextual framings, and/or legislative history), which in turn elicit a series of emotions which work to deepen and intensify judicial understandings of a right guarantee (freedom of association, freedom of expression, equality, security of the person, etc.). This paper examines the way in which invocations of past political histories, and …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Philosophical Basis For Judicial Restraint, Michael Evan Gold
A Philosophical Basis For Judicial Restraint, Michael Evan Gold
Michael Evan Gold
The purpose of this article is to establish a principled basis for restraint of judicial lawmaking. The principle is that all findings of fact, whether of legislative or adjudicative facts, must be based on evidence in the record of a case. This principle is grounded in moral philosophy. I will begin with a discussion of the relevant aspect of moral philosophy, then state and defend the principle, and finally apply it to a line of cases.
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Influence Of The Warren Court And Natural Rights On Substantive Due Process, James Marmaduke
The Influence Of The Warren Court And Natural Rights On Substantive Due Process, James Marmaduke
Calvert Undergraduate Research Awards
Advanced Research Winner 2019:
While the concept of substantive due process has guided judicial decision making even prior to the Civil War, it has become a lightning rod among the juristic community especially since the 1960s. This controversy includes issues ranging from the applicability and reliability to the cogency and legitimacy of the doctrine of substantive due process Many scholars attribute the skepticism toward the concept of substantive due process to be the result of a paradigm shift in the middle of the 20th century when this concept transitioned from an economic and property rights based approach to one …
Hallows Lecture: Ambition And Aspiration: Living Greatly In The Law, Lee H. Rosenthal
Hallows Lecture: Ambition And Aspiration: Living Greatly In The Law, Lee H. Rosenthal
Marquette Law Review
none
Judicial Partisanship In A Partisan Era: A Reply To Professor Robertson, Dmitry Bam
Judicial Partisanship In A Partisan Era: A Reply To Professor Robertson, Dmitry Bam
Faculty Publications
Professor Cassandra Burke Robertson’s outstanding article, Judicial Impartiality in A Partisan Era, is timely given the increasing politicization of the judiciary. The political debate and controversy around the Judge Garland nomination and the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation to the United States Supreme Court, only served to reaffirm that the judiciary is not immune from the growing political polarization in America. And it is not just senate judicial confirmation battles that have become highly bitter and partisan. Scholars writing about the substantive work of the Court have argued that it is more akin to a political body than a judicial one, and …
Kennedy's Legacy: A Principled Justice, Mitchell N. Berman, David Peters
Kennedy's Legacy: A Principled Justice, Mitchell N. Berman, David Peters
All Faculty Scholarship
After three decades on the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy remains its most widely maligned member. Concentrating on his constitutional jurisprudence, critics from across the ideological spectrum have derided Justice Kennedy as “a self-aggrandizing turncoat,” “an unprincipled weathervane,” and, succinctly, “America’s worst Justice.” We believe that Kennedy is not as bereft of a constitutional theory as common wisdom maintains. To the contrary, this Article argues, his constitutional decisionmaking reflects a genuine grasp (less than perfect, more than rudimentary) of a coherent and, we think, compelling theory of constitutional law—the account, more or less, that one of has introduced in other work …