Jurisprudence Commons^™

"I Vote This Way Because I'M Wrong": The Supreme Court Justice As Epimenides, John M. Rogers

John M. Rogers

Possibly the most unsettling phenomenon in the Supreme Court's 1988 term was Justice White's decision to vote contrary to his own exhaustively stated reasoning in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. His unexplained decision to vote against the result of his own analysis lends support to those who argue that law, or at least constitutional law, is fundamentally indeterminate. Proponents of the indeterminacy argument sometimes base their position on the allegedly inescapable inconsistency of decisions made by a multi-member court. There is an answer to the inconsistency argument, but it founders if justices sometimes vote, without explanation, on the ...

Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitution According To Justices Scalia And Thomas: Alive And Kickin', Eric J. Segall

Eric J. Segall

No abstract provided.

On The Conceptual Confusions Of Jurisprudence, Aaron J. Rappaport

Washington University Jurisprudence Review

No abstract provided.

Bringing Guns To A Gun Fight: Why The Adversarial System Is Best Served By A Policy Compelling Attorneys To Ethically Mine For Metadata, Justin Fong

Washington University Jurisprudence Review

No abstract provided.

Ethos, Pathos, And Logos: The Benefits Of Aristotelian Rhetoric In The Courtroom, Krista C. Mccormack

Washington University Jurisprudence Review

No abstract provided.

A Dynamic Theory Of Judicial Role, David Landau

Boston College Law Review

Recent scholarship has focused heavily on the activism of courts in the fragile democracies of the “Global South.” Courts in countries like India, Colombia, and South Africa have issued landmark decisions in difficult political environments, in the process raising unanswered questions about the appropriate conception of judicial role in these climates. Much of the judicial and academic effort in these contexts is self-consciously oriented towards using courts to carry out basic improvements in the quality of political systems seen as badly deficient. In other words, the core task is to improve the quality of the democratic system over time. These ...

The Scope Of Precedent, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

The scope of Supreme Court precedent is capacious. Justices of the Court commonly defer to sweeping rationales and elaborate doctrinal frameworks articulated by their predecessors. This practice infuses judicial precedent with the prescriptive power of enacted constitutional and statutory text. The lower federal courts follow suit, regularly abiding by the Supreme Court's broad pronouncements. These phenomena cannot be explained by—and, indeed, oftentimes subvert—the classic distinction between binding holdings and dispensable dicta.

This Article connects the scope of precedent with recurring and foundational debates about the proper ends of judicial interpretation. A precedent's forward-looking effect should not ...

The Scope Of Precedent, Randy J. Kozel

Michigan Law Review

The scope of Supreme Court precedent is capacious. Justices of the Court commonly defer to sweeping rationales and elaborate doctrinal frameworks articulated by their predecessors. This practice infuses judicial precedent with the prescriptive power of enacted constitutional and statutory text. The lower federal courts follow suit, regularly abiding by the Supreme Court’s broad pronouncements. These phenomena cannot be explained by—and, indeed, oftentimes subvert—the classic distinction between binding holdings and dispensable dicta. This Article connects the scope of precedent with recurring and foundational debates about the proper ends of judicial interpretation. A precedent’s forward- looking effect should ...

The Confusing Standards For Discretionary Review In Washington And A Proposed Framework For Clarity, Judge Stephen Dwyer

Seattle University Law Review

It has now been more than thirty-five years since the Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) became effective in 1976 and replaced all prior rules governing appellate procedure. One significant change that those rules made was to clearly describe and delineate a procedural mechanism for seeking interlocutory review of trial court decisions. The ultimate effect on practitioners is both obvious and unavoidable. Many lawyers, rather than stake out a clear position regarding the applicability of the various considerations governing discretionary review, simply argue that any and every consideration that is even arguably applicable is satisfied by the trial court’s ...

Bonus Babies Escape Golden Handcuffs: How Money And Politics Has Transformed The Career Paths Of Supreme Court Law Clerks, Artemus Ward, Christina Dwyer, Kiranjit Gill

Marquette Law Review

Job prospects for former Supreme Court law clerks have radically changed in recent years. Beginning in 1986, skyrocketing law firm signing bonuses caused a transformation from the natural sorting system, where clerks chose among private practice, government, academic, and public interest positions, to a Bonus Baby Regime where former clerks almost always choose to work in private firms after they leave the Court. This development is a result of both financial and ideological factors. While the more conservative clerking corps of recent years has been increasingly drawn to private practice, the firms themselves hire along ideological lines. Still, while former ...

Women And Law: A Comparative Analysis Of The United States And Indian Supreme Courts' Equality Jurisprudence, Eileen Kaufman

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Vladimir Putin And The Rule Of Law In Russia, Jeffrey Kahn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Must Treaty Violations Be Remedied?: A Critique Of Sanchez-Llamas V. Oregon, John Quigley

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Jurisprudence Of Discrimination As Opposed To Simple Inequality In The International Civil Service, Brian D. Patterson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Due Process Rights Before Eu Agencies: The Rights Of Defense, David E. Shipley

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Weeds, Seeds, & Deeds Redux: Natural And Legal Evolution In The U.S. Seed Wars, Rebecca Stewart

Rebecca K Stewart

Ever since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office began issuing utility patents for plants, the United States has sat squarely on the frontlines of what have come to be known as the “seed wars.” In the last two decades, the majority of battles in the U.S. seed wars have been waged in the form of patent infringement lawsuits. Typically these suits are filed by biotechnology corporations such as Monsanto against farmers accused of saving and planting patented seed that self-replicates to produce progeny embodying—and thus infringing—the biotech corporations’ patented inventions.

Yet in recent years, the seed ...

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The , James L. Kainen

James L. Kainen

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far overlooked ...

The Rules Of Engagement, David D. Butler

David D. Butler

First impressions are the eye of the needle through which all subsequent threads are drawn. Zealous advocates take conrol of the Courtroom even before the prosecution is through the door. Get to the Courtroom first. Secure the table and chairs closer to the jury. Pick up all the chalk by the black board. When the befuddled county attorney is looking for a piece of chalk, hand him or her a nice new piece from the box you have in your attache case. Zealous advocates get to the Courtroom fiirst, with the most. Often, a zealous advocate can lift his or ...

Demosprudence In Comparative Perspective, Brian E. Ray

Brian Ray

This article critically examines the debate over demosprudence. It adopts a comparative - specifically South African - perspective to consider what it means for a court to act demosprudentially and why the practice may have particular value in developing democracies like South Africa. Guinier connects demosprudence to the broader concept of democratic constitutionalism developed by Reva Siegel and Robert Post. Democratic constitutionalism in turn is part of what Jack Balkin describes as "a renaissance of liberal constitutional thought that has emerged in the last five years." This renaissance is characterized by three major themes: constitutional fidelity, democratic constitutionalism, and redemptive constitutionalism. All ...

The Jurisprudence Of The Hughes Court: The Recent Literature, Barry Cushman

Barry Cushman

No abstract provided.

Division Of Labor: The Modernization Of The Supreme Court Of Georgia And Concomitant Workload Reduction Measures In The Court Of Appeals, Kyle G.A. Wallace, Andrew J. Tuck, Max Marks

Georgia State University Law Review

This article addresses two distinct yet interrelated topics: the arcane and unnecessarily complex jurisdictional division between the Georgia Supreme Court and Georgia Court of Appeals, and the excessive caseload at the Georgia Court of Appeals.

In Part I.A., this article discusses Georgia’s appellate system—its history, the jurisdictional division that arose, the confusion the current jurisdictional framework creates, and the limitations and burdens it places on Georgia’s highest court. In Part I.B., the article discusses the current caseload at the Court of Appeals and the burden any jurisdictional reforms would have on the Court of Appeals ...

Historical Antecedents Of Challenges Facing The Georgia Appellate Courts, Michael B. Terry

Georgia State University Law Review

The Georgia appellate courts face challenges common to many courts in these days of reduced governmental resources. At the same time, the Georgia appellate courts face unusual challenges that can be traced to their historical antecedents and one unique constitutional provision: the “Two-Term Rule.” Just as “[t]he law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries,” the current rules and practices of both the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Court of Appeals of Georgia embody the story of the development of those courts since their founding.

Several aspects of the history of the courts directly ...

The Federal Rules At 75: Dispute Resolution, Private Enforcement Or Decisions According To Law?, James R. Maxeiner

Georgia State University Law Review

This essay is a critical response to the 2013 commemorations of the75th anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were introduced in 1938 to provide procedure to decide cases on their merits. The Rules were designed to replace decisions under the “sporting theory of justice”with decisions according to law.

By 1976, at midlife, it was clear that they were not achieving their goal. America’s proceduralists split into two sides about what to do. One side promotes rules that control and conclude litigation: e.g.,plausibility pleading, case management, limited discovery, cost ...

Procedural Due Process In Modern Problem-Solving Courts: An Application Of The Asymmetric Immune Knowledge Hypothesis, Leah C. Georges

Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research: Department of Psychology

Problem-solving courts, such as drug and mental health courts, function under the model of therapeutic jurisprudence—the idea that legal policies and procedures should help and not harm clients, within the confines of the law (Winick & Wexler, 2002). Although it would seem that the lack of procedural due process in most problem-solving courts is in direct opposition to the best interests of a client, it is possible that observers find this more of a problem than do the court clients themselves. This two-experiment study applied Igou’s (2008) AIK hypothesis to problem-solving courts’ practice of sanctioning in the absence of due process. Specifically, it is possible that observers find problem-solving courts’ lack of procedural due process more of a problem than do the clients themselves because of differences in perspective and discordant knowledge of the coping strategies that problem-solving court clients utilize. This research sought to test these ideas. Experiment 1 manipulated the perspective from which participants considered a drug or mental health court sanction proceeding, with or without due process present. Experiment 1 also explored the moderating and mediating effects of participants’ coping knowledge and perceived similarity as it related to their anticipated affect and well-being as a result of the sanction. Experiment 2 manipulated coping directly to determine whether a discordant coping knowledge would explain the perspective effects identified in Experiment 1. Taken together, the findings of these experiments provided mixed support for traditional self-other effects in affective forecasting (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1998; Hsee & Hastie, 2006; Igou, 2004; 2008; Van Boven & Lowenstein, 2003; Wiener, Gervais, Allen, & Marquez, 2013) and even less support for Igou’s asymmetric immune knowledge hypothesis (2008). However, several important, legally relevant findings provide an opportunity to inform future psycholegal research in the area of procedural fairness, due process, and the inherent differences between drug and mental health courts and their clients.

Adviser: Richard L. Wiener

Delay And Its Benefits For Judicial Rulemaking Under Scientific Uncertainty, Rebecca Haw

Boston College Law Review

The Supreme Court’s increasing use of science and social science in its decision making has a rationalizing effect on law that helps ensure that a rule will have its desired effect. But resting doctrine on the shifting sands of scientific and social scientific opinion endangers legal stability. The Court must be responsive, but not reactive, to new scientific findings and theories, a difficult balance for lay justices to strike. This Article argues that the Court uses delay—defined as refusing to make or change a rule in light of new scientific arguments at time one, and then making or ...

Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

It is a virtual axiom in the world of law that legal norms come in two prototypes: rules and standards. The accepted lore suggests that rules should be formulated to regulate recurrent and frequent behaviors, whose contours can be defined with sufficient precision. Standards, by contrast, should be employed to address complex, variegated, behaviors that require the weighing of multiple variables. Rules rely on an ex ante perspective and are therefore considered the domain of the legislator; standards embody a preference for ex post, ad-hoc, analysis and are therefore considered the domain of courts. The rules/standards dichotomy has become ...

The Puzzling Presumption Of Reviewability, Nicholas Bagley

Articles

The presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action is a cornerstone of administrative law, accepted by courts and commentators alike as both legally appropriate and obviously desirable. Yet the presumption is puzzling. As with any canon of statutory construction that serves a substantive end, it should find a source in history, positive law, the Constitution, or sound policy considerations. None of these, however, offers a plausible justification for the presumption. As for history, the sort of judicial review that the presumption favors - appellate-style arbitrariness review - was not only unheard of prior to the twentieth century, but was commonly ...

Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page

Cathren Page

Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend ...

'Gardens Of Justice': Australian Feminist Law Journal, 2013, Volume 39, Matilda Arvidsson, Leila Brännström, Merima Bruncevic, Leif Dahlberg

Dr Matilda Arvidsson

FOREWARD: GARDENS OF JUSTICE

Matilda Arvidsson, Merima Bruncevic, Leila Brannstrom, Leif Dahlberg

Our Gardens of Justice special themed issue of the Australian Feminist Law Journal grew out of the 2012 Critical Legal Conference in Stockholm and its theme of Gardens of Justice, a conference organised by Matilda Arvidsson, Merima Bruncevic, Leila Brannstrom and Leif Dahlberg. We issued a Call for Papers early in 2013 in which several conference theme questions were repeated. We called for papers devoted to thinking about law and justice as a physical as well as a social environment. The theme suggested a plurality of justice gardens ...