Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Active judicial participation (1)
- Butterfield v. Forrester (1)
- Christopher Eisgruber (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional rights (1)
-
- Counter-majoritarian difficulty (1)
- Democratic decision-making (1)
- H.L.A. Hart (1)
- John Mackie (1)
- Judicial activism (1)
- Judicial altruism (1)
- Judicial decision making (1)
- Judicial ethics (1)
- Judicial impartiality (1)
- Judicial motivation (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Justice John Paul Stevens (1)
- Lawrence Sager (1)
- Legal positivism (1)
- Living constitutionalism (1)
- Majoritarian difficulty (1)
- Maki v. Frelk (1)
- Mitchel Lasser (1)
- Orginalism (1)
- Passive judicial participation (1)
- Patrick Leahy (1)
- Rational choice theory (1)
- Rehnquist/Stevens Proposal (1)
- Religion clause (1)
- Religion jurisprudence (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Coming Off The Bench: Legal And Policy Implications Of Proposals To Allow Retired Justices To Sit By Designation On The Supreme Court, Lisa T. Mcelroy, Michael C. Dorf
Coming Off The Bench: Legal And Policy Implications Of Proposals To Allow Retired Justices To Sit By Designation On The Supreme Court, Lisa T. Mcelroy, Michael C. Dorf
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
In the fall of 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced a bill that would have overridden a New Deal-era federal statute forbidding retired Justices from serving by designation on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Leahy bill would have authorized the Court to recall willing retired Justices to substitute for recused Justices. This Article uses the Leahy bill as a springboard for considering a number of important constitutional and policy questions, including whether the possibility of 4-4 splits justifies the substitution of a retired Justice for an active one; whether permitting retired Justices to substitute for recused Justices would …
Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf
Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Recent scholarship in political science and law challenges the view that judicial review in the United States poses what Alexander Bickel famously called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." Although courts do regularly invalidate state and federal action on constitutional grounds, they rarely depart substantially from the median of public opinion. When they do so depart, if public opinion does not eventually come in line with the judicial view, constitutional amendment, changes in judicial personnel, and/or changes in judicial doctrine typically bring judicial understandings closer to public opinion. But if the modesty of courts dissolves Bickel's worry, it raises a distinct one: Are …
Impartiality In Judicial Ethics: A Jurisprudential Analysis, W. Bradley Wendel
Impartiality In Judicial Ethics: A Jurisprudential Analysis, W. Bradley Wendel
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Treating Religion As Speech: Justice Stevens's Religion Clause Jurisprudence, Eduardo M. Peñalver
Treating Religion As Speech: Justice Stevens's Religion Clause Jurisprudence, Eduardo M. Peñalver
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Justice Stevens has sometimes been caricatured as the U.S. Supreme Court Justice who hates religion. Whether considering questions under the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause, questions about the funding or regulation of religious groups, or the permissibility of religious speech in public places, in case after case he has voted against religion. Like most caricatures, this view of Justice Stevens is based on a kernel of truth. He does appear to be more likely to vote against religious groups than any other Justice. But an exploration of the cases in which Justice Stevens has voted in favor of …
Judges As Altruistic Hierarchs, Lynn A. Stout
Judges As Altruistic Hierarchs, Lynn A. Stout
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Preliminary Thoughts On The Virtues Of Passive Dialogue, Michael Heise
Preliminary Thoughts On The Virtues Of Passive Dialogue, Michael Heise
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The judicial, legislative, and executive branches interact in many ways. These interactions fuel a constitutional dialogue that serves as a backdrop to myriad governmental activities, both large and small. The judiciary's participation is necessary, desirable, and, as a practical matter, inevitable. In my article I analyze two competing models that bear on the normative question: What form should the judiciary's participation take?
Debates over the judiciary's appropriate role in the public constitutional dialogue have captured scholarly attention for decades. Recent attention has focused on a growing distinction between the active and passive models of judicial participation. My article approaches this …
Bats And Owls And The Insane Moon: The Search For The Republic's Unwritten Constitution, E. F. Roberts
Bats And Owls And The Insane Moon: The Search For The Republic's Unwritten Constitution, E. F. Roberts
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Reply To Mr Mackie, Robert S. Summers
Reply To Mr Mackie, Robert S. Summers
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Working Conceptions Of "The Law", Robert S. Summers
Working Conceptions Of "The Law", Robert S. Summers
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
This exploratory essay is an admixture of amateur psychology, moral theory, and jurisprudence. It grows out of seminars I have given for judges, and reflects that focus. Co-theorists will now see some of what I have been telling practitioners. And error in my story may be exposed. But one can have no qualms about this. It is especially important to have things put right for judges.