Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court Leaks And Recusals: A Response To Professor Steven Lubet’S Scotus Ethics In The Wake Of Nfib V. Sebelius, 47 Val. U. L. Rev. 925 (2013), Kevin Hopkins
Kevin L. Hopkins
As Professor Steven Lubet notes in his article, Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius, the ethical conduct of Supreme Court Justices has once again gained national attention. This time, however, the context for public outcry is due to actions of an in-house source who released confidential information to a member of the press concerning the voting behavior and the overall sentiments of members of the Court's minority in one of the most significant and controversial rulings of the year: NFIB v. Sebelius (the "Affordable Care Act"). Professor Lubet uses this leaking of significant …
Supreme Court's Iolta Decision: Of Dogs, Mangers, And The Ghost Of Mrs. Frothingham, 30 Seton Hall L. Rev. 846 (2000), Donald L. Beschle
Supreme Court's Iolta Decision: Of Dogs, Mangers, And The Ghost Of Mrs. Frothingham, 30 Seton Hall L. Rev. 846 (2000), Donald L. Beschle
Donald L. Beschle
No abstract provided.
Reconceptualizing The Judicial Activism Debate As Judicial Responsibility: A Tale Of Two Justice Kennedys, Eric J. Segall
Reconceptualizing The Judicial Activism Debate As Judicial Responsibility: A Tale Of Two Justice Kennedys, Eric J. Segall
Eric J. Segall
The academic and political debate over judicial activism has been based on the overriding but patently false assumption that the Supreme Court’s performance can be measured by examining the results that it reaches in constitutional cases. When scholars and politicians equate judicial activism with judicial invalidation of the works of the political branches or the reversal of precedent, however, these commentators don’t reveal anything different than would a pure descriptive account of the Court’s decision and rationale. Moreover, the judicial activism debate is unhelpful because the ambiguous sources of constitutional interpretation cannot privilege fundamental baselines or generate consensus over correct …