Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States. Supreme Court (4)
- Federal Courts (2)
- And dismissals (1)
- Certiorari (1)
- Courts of Last Resort (1)
-
- Injunctions (1)
- Journalists (1)
- Judges (1)
- Judges--Appointments (1)
- Judges--Behavior (1)
- Judges--Ethical Aspects (1)
- Judical Reform Act of 1937 (1)
- Judicial Opinions (1)
- Judicial Review (1)
- Judicial selection (1)
- Legal precedent (1)
- New Deal 1933-1939 (1)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (1)
- New York Times Co. v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (1)
- Polarization (Social sciences) (1)
- Press and Politics (1)
- Reasoning (1)
- Resignations (1)
- Rule of law (1)
- Stare decisis (1)
- State Courts (1)
- Summary judgments (1)
- Supreme Court Justices (1)
- United Kingdom (1)
- United States (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Janus-Faced Judging: How The Supreme Court Is Radically Weakening Stare Decisis, Michael Gentithes
Janus-Faced Judging: How The Supreme Court Is Radically Weakening Stare Decisis, Michael Gentithes
William & Mary Law Review
Drastic changes in Supreme Court doctrine require citizens to reorder their affairs rapidly, undermining their trust in the judiciary. Stare decisis has traditionally limited the pace of such change on the Court. It is a bulwark against wholesale jurisprudential reversals. But, in recent years, the stare decisis doctrine has come under threat.
With little public or scholarly notice, the Supreme Court has radically weakened stare decisis in two ways. First, the Court has reversed its long-standing view that a precedent, regardless of the quality of its reasoning, should stand unless there is some special, practical justification to overrule it. Recent …
Judicial Credibility, Bert I. Huang
Judicial Credibility, Bert I. Huang
William & Mary Law Review
Do people believe a federal court when it rules against the government? And does such judicial credibility depend on the perceived political affiliation of the judge? This study presents a survey experiment addressing these questions, based on a set of recent cases in which both a judge appointed by President George W. Bush and a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton declared the same Trump Administration action to be unlawful. The findings offer evidence that, in a politically salient case, the partisan identification of the judge—here, as a “Bush judge” or “Clinton judge”—can influence the credibility of judicial review in …
Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy
Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy
William & Mary Law Review
When it comes to court packing, questions of “should” and “can” are inextricably intertwined. The conventional wisdom has long been that federal court packing is something the President and Congress simply cannot do. Even though the Constitution’s text does not directly prohibit expanding or contracting the size of courts for political gain, many have argued that there is a longstanding norm against doing so, stemming from a commitment to judicial independence and separation of powers. And so (the argument goes), even though the political branches might otherwise be tempted to add or subtract seats to change the Court’s ideological makeup, …
Judging "Under Fire" And The Retreat To Facts, Allison Orr Larsen
Judging "Under Fire" And The Retreat To Facts, Allison Orr Larsen
William & Mary Law Review
Americans tend to worry about how our current polarized political climate will affect the legitimacy of our courts. Often overlooked in this important conversation is a discussion about what a toxic political dialogue can do—and in fact is doing—to the construction of the law itself. This Article will begin to make the case that judicial decisions themselves change as a result of high-intensity politics. Specifically, I will argue that when judges are “under fire” (to borrow a phrase from Planned Parenthood v. Casey), they tend to cloak their decisions in factual observations about the world that seem neutral and objective, …
The Judicial Reforms Of 1937, Barry Cushman
The Judicial Reforms Of 1937, Barry Cushman
William & Mary Law Review
The literature on reform of the federal courts in 1937 understandably focuses on the history and consequences of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ill-fated proposal to increase the membership of the Supreme Court. A series of decisions declaring various components of the New Deal unconstitutional had persuaded Roosevelt and some of his advisors that the best way out of the impasse was to enlarge the number of justiceships and to appoint to the new positions jurists who would be “dependable” supporters of the administration’s program. Yet Roosevelt and congressional Democrats also were deeply troubled by what they perceived as judicial obstruction …
Protecting The Role Of The Press During Times Of Crisis, Mary-Rose Papandrea
Protecting The Role Of The Press During Times Of Crisis, Mary-Rose Papandrea
William & Mary Law Review
President Trump’s daily tweets attacking the media have led many observers to express concern about the state of the press in our nation. Trump has called the press “the ... enemy of the [American] people,” encouraged a climate of hatred toward journalists at his rallies, refused to condemn Saudi Arabia for the brutal killing of reporter Jamal Khashoggi, and accused the media of writing “fake news.” The public’s trust in the institutional press has simultaneously diminished. Combined with the continuing economic challenges journalists face, the press is certainly facing some difficult times.
Nevertheless, things are not as dire as they …
Summary Dispositions As Precedent, Richard C. Chen
Summary Dispositions As Precedent, Richard C. Chen
William & Mary Law Review
The Supreme Court’s practice of summarily reversing decisions based on certiorari filings, without the benefit of merits briefing or oral argument, has recently come under increasing scrutiny. The practice is difficult to square with the Court’s stated criteria for granting certiorari and its norms against reviewing fact-bound cases to engage in mere error correction. Nonetheless, there is growing acceptance that the practice is likely to continue in some form, and the conversation has shifted to asking when the use of summary dispositions should be considered proper. Commentators have had no trouble identifying the Court’s tendencies: summary dispositions are most commonly …
A Brief History Of Judical Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration, Donald F. Mcgahn Ii
A Brief History Of Judical Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration, Donald F. Mcgahn Ii
William & Mary Law Review
Thank you so much for that kind introduction. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am going to talk about the confirmation process generally. There is no better place to talk about it than here. Let me begin with some numbers and statistics, before I turn to the main thrust of my talk, to give some context as to what recent Presidents have done with respect to judicial appointments. President Trump has appointed two Supreme Court Justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett of Appeals; twenty-nine so far have been confirmed. The Senate Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, has already …