Law Commons^™

The Five Days In June When Values Died In American Law, Bruce Ledewitz

Akron Law Review

During a five day period in June, 1992, every Justice on the United States Supreme Court joined one or the other of two opinions that denied the objectivity of values—either Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lee v. Weisman or Justice Scalia’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Both of these opinions expressed the view that normative judgments are merely human constructions. This moment represents symbolically the death of values in American law. The arrival of nihilism at the heart of American law is a world-changing event for law that must be acknowledged.

The death of values was announced by …

The Semi-Retirement Of Senior Supreme Court Justices: Examining Their Service On The Courts Of Appeals, Jon A. Gryskiewicz

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Clouds In The Crystal Ball: Presidential Expectations And The Unpredictable Behavior Of Supreme Court Appointees, Christopher E. Smith, Kimberly A. Beuger

Akron Law Review

This article will analyze the pitfalls that presidents face in hoping that their nominees' judicial performance will comport with presidential expectations.

A Proposal For Improving Argument Before The United States Supreme Court, Louis J. Sirico Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article offers a simple solution for reducing the overload of questions at oral argument. Justices, individually or collectively, could pose written questions on facts and law to the litigants' counsel before oral argument and expect written responses. The submitted questions might inquire about the facts of the case, about the litigant's interpretation of the relevant law, about the response that the litigant would make to a hypothetical scenario, or about the precise holding that the litigant wishes the Court to propound. The responses should allow for more thought-out answers than oral argument can produce and might both reduce the …

Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court Upholds The Constitutionality Of The Jurisdictional Grant Of The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Over A Suit Between An Alien And A Foreign Sovereign In United States District Court, Stephen E. Farish

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Frenemies Of The Court: The Many Faces Of Amicus Curiae, Helen A. Anderson

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost

Vanderbilt Law Review

The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution's text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …