Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Judicial Nominations (2)
- 135 S. Ct. 1074 (1)
- 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (1)
- Career-offender guideline (1)
- Eliminating Circuit-Split Disparities (1)
-
- Federal Sentencing (1)
- Judges (1)
- Myra Selby (1)
- Post-Booker Guidelines (1)
- Sentencing Commission (1)
- Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (1)
- Sentencing discretion (1)
- Sentencing enhancements (1)
- Sentencing guidelines (1)
- Sentencing reform (1)
- Statutory Interpretation (1)
- Textualism (1)
- United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- United States v. Booker (1)
- Yates v. United States (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Eliminating Circuit-Split Disparities In Federal Sentencing Under The Post-Booker Guidelines, Elliot Edwards
Eliminating Circuit-Split Disparities In Federal Sentencing Under The Post-Booker Guidelines, Elliot Edwards
Indiana Law Journal
This Note will explore the rarely discussed consequences that result when courts of appeals freely interpret the Sentencing Guidelines. This Note will not address appellate review of sentences in general, nor will it discuss disparities caused by trial courts. Instead, the discussion below will address a very specific situation, namely when a court of appeals vacates a sentence because, in its estimation, the trial court misapplied the Guidelines. Part I will relate the history of the recent sentencing re-form movement in America, noting particularly which bodies have the authority to decide sentencing policy. Part II will then analyze the interpretive …
Confirm Myra Selby For The Seventh Circuit, Carl W. Tobias
Confirm Myra Selby For The Seventh Circuit, Carl W. Tobias
Indiana Law Journal
This Article canvasses Myra Selby’s dynamic professional record, the federal judicial selection process under President Obama, and the Seventh Circuit. It ascertains that Selby is an exceptionally competent, mainstream prospect and that the appellate court requires all of its members to deliver justice. However, Republican senators did not collaborate, particularly after they had captured a Senate majority—a circumstance that this presidential election year aggravates. The last section, therefore, proffers recommendations for Selby’s prompt Senate consideration and confirmation.
How Conservative Justices Are Undertermining Our Democracy (Or What's At Stake In Choosing Justice Scalia, Alan E. Garfield
How Conservative Justices Are Undertermining Our Democracy (Or What's At Stake In Choosing Justice Scalia, Alan E. Garfield
Indiana Law Journal
In this essay, Professor Garfield contends that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court have allowed elected officials to manipulate laws to entrench themselves in office and to disenfranchise voters who threaten their power. The justices’ unwillingness to curb these abuses has largely redounded to the benefit of the Republican Party because Republicans control the majority of state legislatures and have used this power to gerrymander legislative districts and to enact voter‑suppressive laws such as voter ID laws. With Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected passing during the administration of a Democratic president, the conservatives’ control of the Court has been put …
Intangible Fish And The Gulf Of Understanding: Yates V. United States And The Court's Approach To Statutory Interpretation, John M. Garvin
Intangible Fish And The Gulf Of Understanding: Yates V. United States And The Court's Approach To Statutory Interpretation, John M. Garvin
Indiana Law Journal
Is a fish a tangible object? The answer in most cases is obviously “yes.” But in Yates v. United States, the Supreme Court held that fish are outside the meaning of the phrase “tangible object” as it is used in the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. This Note argues that the Yates decision provides a lens with which to examine the Court’s contemporary methods of statutory interpretation. In adopting the textualist vocabulary most famously associated with the late Justice Scalia, the Justices have committed to speaking the same language. Still, fundamental differences between the Justices remain. These differences expose the …