Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Blowing Hot Air: An Analysis Of State Involvement In Greenhouse Gas Litigation, Caroline Cecot
Blowing Hot Air: An Analysis Of State Involvement In Greenhouse Gas Litigation, Caroline Cecot
Vanderbilt Law Review
In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Clean Air Act ("CAA") to require the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to regulate greenhouse gas emissions1 from motor vehicles if the EPA Administrator finds that the emissions endanger public health and welfare ("Endangerment Finding"). In December 2009, the Administrator made such an Endangerment Finding, obligating the EPA to work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") to develop average fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for new light-duty vehicles. After issuing proposals and reviewing comments from the public, the two agencies announced their groundbreaking final regulation ("Tailpipe …
Neutral Principles: A Retrospective, Barry Friedman
Neutral Principles: A Retrospective, Barry Friedman
Vanderbilt Law Review
Once upon a time, Enlightenment ideals prevailed across the land. Neutrality, objectivity, and reason were accepted as the firmaments of Supreme Court decisionmaking. "Americans tend[ed] to believe that 'playing fair' [meant] making everyone play by the same rules, and any deviation from this definition [was] immediately suspect."' But "then, some scholars.., abandoned the fundamental aspiration toward. . . neutrality in government." "Neutrality" came to be "considered a chimera, an illusion used by those in power to justify and perpetuate existing hierarchies." The nation was threatened with a return to pre-Enlightenment days, a "return to a world in which it matters …
Public Choice, Public Opinion, And The Fuller Court, Jonathan R. Macey
Public Choice, Public Opinion, And The Fuller Court, Jonathan R. Macey
Vanderbilt Law Review
Everyone has his own, personal view about what role the United States Supreme Court should play in American political life. Conservatives of the Robert Bork variety prefer that supreme court justices treat congressional enactments with great deference and respect.' Liberals of the Laurence Tribe persuasion like judges to take an active role in ensuring certain individual rights, such as the right to abortion, while giving Congress latitude to regulate in the sphere of economic rights. Libertarians of the Bernard Siegan orientation strenuously deny the difference between economic liberties and other sorts of human rights and would have judges actively protect …
Eighth Amendment Challenges To The Death Penalty: The Relevance Of Informed Public Opinion, Charles W. Thomas
Eighth Amendment Challenges To The Death Penalty: The Relevance Of Informed Public Opinion, Charles W. Thomas
Vanderbilt Law Review
In light of the Court's recent holding in Gregg v. Georgia, future death penalty challenges almost certainly will focus upon the type and quality of evidence available to serve as "objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction."'" Unfortunately, the "objective indicia" that can be relied upon and the manner in which they are to be weighted is not altogether clear. In Gregg, for example, the Court emphasized such traditional considerations as legislative enactments, decisions rendered by juries, and the single post-Furman referendum on the death penalty.'" Additionally, evidence pertaining to the determinants of public support for …