Jurisprudence Commons^™

An American Original, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

This is one of many articles tributing Judge Myron H. Bright in recognition of thirty years of service on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This article describes Professor Carlson's relationship with Judge Bright and details Judge Bright's career.

The Supreme Court 1997 Term -- Foreword: The Limits Of Socratic Deliberation, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Managed Care And Managed Sentencing — A Tale Of Two Systems, Ronald Weich

All Faculty Scholarship

The daily injustices mount. The front line professionals who administer the system cry out for more discretion to depart from the rigid rules that bind them, Congress finally hears their call, and is poised to enact sweeping reforms.

Are improvements in federal sentencing law on the way? Probably not in the near future. But the new Congress will surely take up proposals to regulate the managed health care industry, and the impending debate over a proposed "Patients' Bill of Rights" law offers important lessons for federal sentencing policy.

At first blush, sentencing reform and health care reform have about as …

Of Communists And Anti-Abortion Protestors: The Consequences Of Falling Into The Theoretical Abyss, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

Part I of this article briefly reviews the legal and social context of Dennis and Yates. Parts II and III similarly review Madsen and Schenck in order to show potential parallels to the earlier communist decisions. Part IV further examines both Madsen and Schenck, demonstrating that, from a doctrinal standpoint, they are far removed from the earlier communist cases. Finally, Part V explains how the Court in Madsen and Schenck actually contributed to misconceptions or manipulation of its opinions. Specifically, Part V examines the Madsen and Schenck Courts' approaches to three of the more difficult doctrinal issues facing them--prior restraint, …

Coming Out: Decision-Making In State And Federal Sodomy Cases, Susan Ayres

Faculty Scholarship

In 1791, American states were enacting laws against sodomy at the same time they ratified the Bill of Rights, the first ten constitutional amendments meant to safeguard fundamental rights of individuals in a free society. In a March 1789 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson asserted that a bill of rights was necessary to give the judiciary the power to protect such individual rights. Ironically, that which the judiciary gives, it may also take away, since "[t]he legislator is a writer. And the judge a reader."

This Article deconstructs recent sodomy cases in order to challenge judicial adoption or reinscription …

The United States' Approach To International Civil Litigation: Recent Developments In Forum Selection, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Fashioning An Interdisciplinary Framework For Court Reform In Family Law: A Blueprint To Construct A Unified Family Court, Barbara A. Babb

All Faculty Scholarship

Family law cases focus on some of the most intimate, emotional, and all-encompassing aspects of parties' personal lives. Based on its study of unmet legal needs of children and their families, the American Bar Association has recommended the establishment of unified family courts in all jurisdictions. This article evaluates how America's courts adjudicate family law matters and advocates systemic change by offering an interdisciplinary ecological and therapeutic approach to the creation of unified family courts. The author presents a comprehensive overview of the results of her nationwide survey determining how each state's courts handle family law matters. The results of …

"Intensional Contexts" And The Rule That Statutes Should Be Interpreted As Consistent With International Law, John M. Rogers

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Striving for consistency—for consistency, that is, properly understood—must characterize legal reasoning in order for the reasoning to deserve to be called "legal." It may conceivably be "good" or "moral" for identically situated persons to be treated differently by institutions with power, but doing so can hardly be called "legal." Very careful attention must be given, of course, to what is meant by "identically situated," as no two different persons can be 100% identically situated. Their names, for instance, are different. By identical, we must mean no relevant distinction, or no distinction that serves a purpose that we can articulate and …

An Old Jurisprudence: Respect In Retrospect, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Holmes And The Romantic Mind, Anne Dailey

Faculty Articles and Papers

No abstract provided.

Sentenced For A Crime The Government Did Not Prove: Jones V. United States And The Constitutional Limitations On Factfinding By Sentencing Factors Rather Than Elements Of The Offense, Benjamin Priester

Journal Publications

The tension between the two principles set out above is an unresolved dilemma for the United States Supreme Court. On the one hand, not every fact relevant to sentencing a criminal defendant warrants the Constitution's full criminal procedure protections. On the other hand, if those protections apply only to the facts selected by the legislature to determine guilt or innocence, the sentencing proceeding may overwhelm the trial in importance because the sentencing facts will determine the defendant's fate to a far greater extent. Justice Scalia described this tension bluntly: Suppose that a State repealed all of the violent crimes in …

"Lit. Theory" Put To The Test: A Comparative Literary Analysis Of American Judicial Tests And French Judicial Discourse, Mitchel De S.-O.-L'E. Lasser

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The formalism/policy dichotomy has structured American jurisprudential analyses of judicial decisionmaking for most of the twentieth century. In this Article, Professor Lasser analyzes and compares American multi-part judicial tests and French civil judicial discourse to demonstrate that the dichotomy reflects and informs the ways in which judicial decisions are written. Drawing on the works of Roman Jakobson, Roland Barthes, and Paul de Man, he constructs a literary methodology to analyze American and French judicial discourse. Professor Lasser contends that the formalism/policy dichotomy is part of a larger process by which the American and French judicial systems justify how they produce …

Crime Or Punishment: The Parental Corporal Punishment Defense - Reasonable And Necessary, Or Excused Abuse, Kandice Johnson

Faculty Publications

The parental right to use physical force to discipline and restrain children is a privilege firmly rooted in the American system of jurisprudence. This privilege is often asserted as a defense when parents are charged with a crime of aggression against their child. While the privilege to use disciplinary force is universally recognized as a defense in criminal actions, it is equally acknowledged that child abuse is a pervasive reality of American life. This article postulates that current laws, addressing assertion of the parental privilege defense in criminal actions, fail either to provide adequate guidance to parents or to sufficiently …

Judicial Supremacy And The Settlement Function, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Whitehead's Metaphysics And The Law: A Dialogue, Jay Tidmarsh

Journal Articles

The purposes of this Article are to explore the relationship between Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy and the nature of law, and to develop from that exploration a theory of "process jurisprudence." To some extent, this Article is a process of interpretation and imagination. Whitehead himself devoted little attention to the nature of law. Therefore, rather than attempting to declare definitively the implications of Whitehead's thought for the nature of law, this Article is structured in the form of a dialogue between "Whitehead" and a lawyer whom I have called "Chris." In Part II, as he discusses his system of …

Between Truth And Provocation: Reclaiming Reason In American Legal Scholarship, Francis J. Mootz Iii

Scholarly Works

Truth has regained a strong voice in American legal scholarship. Like a groggy patient slowly emerging from a traumatic operation, legal theory is being coaxed back to consciousness by Dan Farber and Suzanna Sherry. They are fighting the debilitating illness of radical multiculturalism and its attendant relativism; they proclaim that the cure can be found in the power of truth, the force or reason, and the integrity of the word. Unfortunately, the patient is unlikely to recover while in the care of Farber and Sherry, even though their operation must be judged a success on its own terms. By equating …

Law And Human Dignity: The Judicial Soul Of Justice Brennan, Stephen Wermiel

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Textualism And Judgment, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Textualism, like other foundationalist theories such as originalism, purports to be a grand theory of constitutional interpretation, answering all questions with the same single-minded and narrowly constrained technique. The inevitable result is a diminution of what one might call judgment. Judgment is what judges use to decide cases when the answer is not tightly constrained by some interpretive theory. It is an aspect of what others have called prudence, or pragmatism.' But if one has a theory of constitutional interpretation that is supposed to produce clear answers in a relatively mechanical way, there is little room for the exercise of …

A Century Lost: The End Of The Originalism Debate, Eric J. Segall

Faculty Publications By Year

Focuses on the originalism debate on the constitutional law of the United States. Contemporary debate; Analysis on the debate; Views an arguments on originalism.

The Christian Jurisprudence Of Robert E. Rodes Jr., Thomas L. Shaffer

Journal Articles

When I had the chance to leave law practice and become a fulltime law teacher, I turned, in the time-honored fashion, for advice from my law teachers. The most memorable and persistent of these—the most cheerful, too, and therefore the most hopeful—was Robert E. Rodes, Jr., then a young (36), transplanted New Yorker, Harvard law graduate, and Boston lawyer. He had already come to flourish, in the Aristotelian sense, in the Midwest—in a Catholic university known more for its football players than for its lawyers.

Rodes told me he had come to teaching and to Notre Dame because he wanted …

The New Etiquette Of Federalism: New York, Printz And Yeskey, Matthew D. Adler, Seth F. Kreimer

Faculty Scholarship

In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), the Court revived "state sovereignty" as a justiciable constitutional constraint on federal mandates, and struck down portions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act on the grounds that the statute impermissibly "commandeered" state governments. Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997), confirmed the anti-commandeering principle and relied upon it to invalidate elements of another federal statute, the Brady Act. This Article analyzes and criticizes the anti-commandeering jurisprudence, as it has emerged in New York, Printz, and a case decided by the Court last Term, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections …

Whose Federalism, S. Elizabeth Malloy

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Article examines briefly the Seminole Tribe and City of Boerne decisions. Part II then focuses on the ADA and the reasons why Congress made it applicable to government conduct as well as private conduct. Finally, Part III examines the argument, based on the new federalism, that the ADA should not apply to state entities. It does not appear that the Court's new federalism has had a liberty-enhancing effect for some of the most vulnerable persons in our society. The Court's revitalized federalism jurisprudence has led to questions about the continuing validity of many of our civil rights statutes as …

Rhetoric, Pragmatism And The Interdisciplinary Turn In Legal Criticism -- A Study Of Altruistic Judicial Argument, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Authorizing Interpretation, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Substantial Assistance And Sentence Severity: Is There A Correlation Substantial Assistance, Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

How much more severe are sentences imposed in districts with low substantial assistance rates than those in which the rate is very high? In the aggregate, not at all. At first blush this may puzzle readers because substantial assistance (SA) departures are very unevenly distributed across districts and SA accounts for nearly two-thirds of all downward departures, almost 7,900 of the 12,000 in fiscal 1996. Although this pattern could result in gross disparities among districts, my analysis of inter-district sentencing patterns reveals no statistically significant correlation between the rate of SA departures and the average length of sentences imposed in …

Hart's Methodological Positivism, Stephen R. Perry

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Light On A Darkling Plain: Intercircuit Conflicts In The Perspective Of Time And Experience, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

The time has long passed when the Supreme Court resolved every intercircuit conflict properly brought before it in a petition for certiorari. Is that a problem we should be concerned about? Three decades ago, Congress asked the Federal Judicial Center, the research arm of the federal judiciary, to conduct a study to ascertain “the number and frequency of conflicts among the judicial circuits … that remain unresolved because they are not heard by the Supreme Court.” Congress further requested that the Center determine the extent to which the unresolved conflicts are “intolerable.” The Center asked me to design and conduct …

Logic And Elements. (Premises And Conclusions: Symbolic Logic For Legal Analysis)." , Richard D. Friedman

Articles

We may happily agree with Holmes that logic is not the life of the law' and yet contend that logic should play a significant role in legal discourse. Logic cannot demonstrate the truth of premises, and so by itself it cannot demonstrate the merits of a legal argument. Moreover, even given the premises, it may be that a leap of faith, or intuition, has an irreducible role at least in some good legal arguments.2 But at least a sound legal argument will not be an illogical one. An argument will not be persuasive if it appears to violate basic principles …

Posner's Economic Approach To Comparative Law, William Ewald

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

An Historical Analysis Of The Binding Nature Of Class Suits, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., John L. Gedid, Stephen Sowie

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.