Certainty Vs. Flexibility In The Conflict Of Laws, 2018 University of Pennsylvania Law School
Certainty Vs. Flexibility In The Conflict Of Laws, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law
Traditional choice of law theory conceives of certainty and flexibility as opposed values: increase one, and you inevitably decrease the other. This article challenges the received wisdom by reconceptualizing the distinction. Rather than caring about certainty or flexibility for their own sake, it suggests, we care about them because each makes it easier to promote a certain cluster of values. And while there may be a necessary tradeoff between certainty and flexibility, there is no necessary tradeoff between the clusters of values. It is possible to improve a choice of law system with regard to both of them. The article ...
Law School News: Three Rwu Law Graduates Nominated For State Judgeships 12-10-2018, 2018 Roger Williams University
Law School News: Three Rwu Law Graduates Nominated For State Judgeships 12-10-2018, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
Judicializing History: Mass Crimes Trials And The Historian As Expert Witness In West Germany, Cambodia, And Bangladesh, 2018 Australian National University
Judicializing History: Mass Crimes Trials And The Historian As Expert Witness In West Germany, Cambodia, And Bangladesh, Rebecca Gidley, Mathew Turner
Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal
Henry Rousso warned that the engagement of historians as expert witnesses in trials, particularly highly politicized proceedings of mass crimes, risks a judicialization of history. This article tests Rousso’s argument through analysis of three quite different case studies: the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial; the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia; and the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. It argues that Rousso’s objections misrepresent the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, while failing to account for the engagement of historical expertise in mass atrocity trials beyond Europe. Paradoxically, Rousso’s criticisms are less suited to the European context that represents his purview ...
Sb 407 - Sentencing And Punishment, 2018 Georgia State University College of Law
Sb 407 - Sentencing And Punishment, Abigail L. Howd, Alisa M. Radut
Georgia State University Law Review
The Act provides comprehensive reform for offenders entering, proceeding through, and leaving the criminal justice system. The Act requires all superior court clerks to provide an electronic filing option, and it requires juvenile court clerks to collect and report certain data about juvenile offenders to the Juvenile Data Exchange. In addition, the Act creates the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and the Criminal Case Data Exchange Board. The Act also changes the grounds for granting and revoking professional licenses and drivers’ licenses to offenders and modifies the provisions relating to issuing citations and setting bail. Inmates of any public institution may ...
A Conversation With The Honorable Rosalie Silberman Abella And Dean Matthew Diller, 2018 Supreme Court of Canada
A Conversation With The Honorable Rosalie Silberman Abella And Dean Matthew Diller, Rosalie Silberman Abella, Matthew Diller
Fordham Law Review
DEAN MATTHEW DILLER: This year we are leading up to our celebration of 100 Years of Women at Fordham Law School. In September 1918, the Fordham Law faculty voted to admit women, and we are planning to celebrate that in style. But tonight perhaps is a bit of a teaser for that. Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella is a woman of firsts. She is the first Jewish woman to sit on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada, and before the Supreme Court, when she was appointed to the Ontario Family Court in 1976, she became the first Jewish woman ...
Who Decides Justice: The Case For Legally Trained Magistrate Judges In West Virginia, 2018 West Virginia Univeristy College of Law
Who Decides Justice: The Case For Legally Trained Magistrate Judges In West Virginia, Jason Neal
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
If An Interpreter Mistranslates In A Courtroom And There Is No Recording, Does Anyone Care?: The Case For Protecting Lep Defendants’ Constitutional Rights, 2018 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
If An Interpreter Mistranslates In A Courtroom And There Is No Recording, Does Anyone Care?: The Case For Protecting Lep Defendants’ Constitutional Rights, Lisa Santaniello
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
No abstract provided.
Democratizing Interpretation, 2018 College of William & Mary Law School
Democratizing Interpretation, Anya Bernstein
William & Mary Law Review
Judges interpreting statutes sometimes seem eager to outsource the work. They quote ordinary speakers to define a statutory term, point to how an audience understands it, or pin it down with interpretive canons. But sometimes conduct that appears to diminish someone’s power instead sneakily enhances it. So it is with these forms of interpretive outsourcing. Each seems to constrain judges’ authority by handing the reins to someone else, giving interpretation a democratized veneer. But in fact, each funnels power right back to the judge.
These outsourcing approaches show a disconnect between the questions judges pose and the methods they ...
The Algorithm Game, 2018 University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
The Algorithm Game, Jane Bambauer, Tal Zarsky
Notre Dame Law Review
Most of the discourse on algorithmic decisionmaking, whether it comes in the form of praise or warning, assumes that algorithms apply to a static world. But automated decisionmaking is a dynamic process. Algorithms attempt to estimate some difficult-to-measure quality about a subject using proxies, and the subjects in turn change their behavior in order to game the system and get a better treatment for themselves (or, in some cases, to protest the system.) These behavioral changes can then prompt the algorithm to make corrections. The moves and countermoves create a dance that has great import to the fairness and efficiency ...
If The Text Is Clear—Lexical Ordering In Statutory Interpretation, 2018 New York University School of Law
If The Text Is Clear—Lexical Ordering In Statutory Interpretation, Adam M. Samaha
Notre Dame Law Review
Most courts now endorse lexical ordering for statutory cases. That is, a limited set of top-tier sources, if adequately clear, are supposed to establish statutory meaning. Lower-tier sources are held in reserve for close calls. Examples include legislative history and deference to agency positions, which often are demoted into tiebreaking roles. In fact, some such hierarchy of sources is approved by working majorities at the U.S. Supreme Court and more than forty state supreme courts. Although popular today, lexically ordered interpretation has risen and fallen before. Indeed, we should pause to reconsider whether these instructions are justified and whether ...
Study Group On Immigrant Representation: The First Decade, 2018 Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Study Group On Immigrant Representation: The First Decade, Robert A. Katzmann
Fordham Law Review
All of us here have a common goal: ensuring adequate legal representation of the immigrant poor. A courtroom has multiple players with different roles, but all would agree that adequate legal representation of the parties is essential to the fair and effective administration of justice. Deficient representation frustrates the work of courts and ill serves litigants. All too often, and throughout the country, courts that address immigration matters must contend with such a breakdown in legal representation, a crisis of massive proportions with severe, tragic costs to immigrants and their families. For our nation’s immigrants, the urgent need for ...
Universal Representation, 2018 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Universal Representation, Lindsay Nash
Fordham Law Review
In an era in which there is little good news for immigrant communities and even holding the line has become an ambitious goal, one progressive project has continued to gain steam: the movement to provide universal representation for noncitizens in removal proceedings. This effort, initially born out of a pilot project in New York City, has generated a host of replication projects throughout the nation and holds the promise of even broader expansion. But as it grows, this effort must confront challenges from within: the sort-of supporters who want to limit this representation system’s coverage in a number of ...
Arguing With Friends, 2018 University of Chicago Law School
Arguing With Friends, William Baude, Ryan D. Doerfler
Michigan Law Review
Judges sometimes disagree about the best way to resolve a case. But the conventional wisdom is that they should not be too swayed by such disagreement and should do their best to decide the case by their own lights. An emerging critique questions this view, arguing instead for widespread humility. In the face of disagreement, the argument goes, judges should generally concede ambiguity and uncertainty in almost all contested cases.
Both positions are wrong. Drawing on the philosophical concepts of “peer disagreement” and “epistemic peerhood,” we argue for a different approach: A judge ought to give significant weight to the ...
The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-Worthy Women, 2018 Texas A&M University School of Law
The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-Worthy Women, Meg Penrose
Four women have served as Associate Justices on the United States Supreme Court. Since the Court’s inception in 1789, 162 individuals have been nominated to serve as Supreme Court Justices. Five nominees, or roughly 3 percent, have been women. To help put this gender dearth in perspective, more men named “Samuel” have served as Supreme Court Justices than women. Thirteen U.S. Presidents have nominated more people to the Supreme Court than the total number of women that have served on the Court. Finally, there are currently more Catholics serving on the Supreme Court than the number of women ...
Judicial Conflicts And Voting Agreement: Evidence From Interruptions At Oral Argument, 2018 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Judicial Conflicts And Voting Agreement: Evidence From Interruptions At Oral Argument, Tonja Jacobi, Kyle Rozema
Boston College Law Review
This Article asks whether observable conflicts between Supreme Court justices—interruptions between the justices during oral arguments—can predict breakdowns in voting outcomes that occur months later. To answer this question, we built a unique dataset based on the transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments and justice votes in cases from 1960 to 2015. We find that on average a judicial pair is seven percent less likely to vote together in a case for each interruption that occurs between them in the oral argument for that case. While a conflict between the justices that leads to both interruptions and a ...
Wrong, Out Of Step, And Pernicious: Erie As The Worst Decision Of All Time, 2018 Selected Works
Wrong, Out Of Step, And Pernicious: Erie As The Worst Decision Of All Time, Suzanna Sherry
This essay was written for “Supreme Mistakes: Exploring the Most Maligned Decisions in Supreme Court History.” A symposium on the worst Supreme Court decision of all time risks becoming an exercise best described by Claude Rains’s memorable line in Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.” Two things saved this symposium from that fate. First, each of the usual suspects was appointed defense counsel, which made things more interesting. Second, a new face found its way into the line-up: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. My goal in this essay is to explain why Erie is in fact guiltier than all of ...
All Or Nothing: Explaining The Size Of Supreme Court Majorities, 2018 Selected Works
All Or Nothing: Explaining The Size Of Supreme Court Majorities, Paul H. Edelman, Suzanna Sherry
In this Article, Professors Edelman and Sherry use a probabilistic model to explore the process of coalition formation on the United States Supreme Court. They identify coalition formation as a Markov process with absorbing states and examine voting patterns from twelve Court Terms. On the basis of their data, they conclude that Justices are reluctant to remain in small minorities. Surprisingly, however, they also find that a three-Justice minority coalition is less likely to suffer defections than a four-Justice minority coalition. This counterintuitive result suggests that while in general it is minority Justices rather than majority Justices who drive the ...
Can Judges Be Uncivilly Obedient?, 2018 College of William & Mary Law School
Can Judges Be Uncivilly Obedient?, Brannon P. Denning
William & Mary Law Review
In a recent article, Jessica Bulman-Pozen and David Pozen identified “uncivil obedience” as a tactic for protesting laws or regulations, not by violating the law, as with civil disobedience, but rather by scrupulous attendance to it. They noted that it is a tactic available to private and public actors alike, but were doubtful that a judicial variety existed. They were skeptical because, in their opinion, even hyper-formalist legal opinions would be unlikely to be perceived as provocative as scrupulous adherence to the letter of the law might be when practiced by non-judicial actors. In this Article, I argue that judicial ...
"Beauty Is Truth And Truth Beauty": How Intuitive Insights Shape Legal Reasoning And The Rule Of Law, 2018 Seattle University School of Law
"Beauty Is Truth And Truth Beauty": How Intuitive Insights Shape Legal Reasoning And The Rule Of Law, Stephen M. Maurer
Seattle University Law Review
Scientists have long recognized two distinct forms of human thought. “Type 1” reasoning is unconscious, intuitive, and specializes in finding complex patterns. It is typically associated with the aesthetic emotion that John Keats called “beauty.” “Type 2” reasoning is conscious, articulable, and deductive. Scholars usually assume that legal reasoning is entirely Type 2. However, critics from Holmes to Posner have protested that unconscious and intuitive judgments are at least comparably important. This Article takes the conjecture seriously by asking what science can add to our understanding of how lawyers and judges interpret legal texts. The analysis is overdue. Humanities scholars ...
Roger Williams University School Of Law And The Women's Law Society Present Women In Robes 10-4-2018, 2018 Roger Williams University
Roger Williams University School Of Law And The Women's Law Society Present Women In Robes 10-4-2018, Roger Williams University School Of Law
School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events
No abstract provided.