Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Judging Judges And Dispute Resolution Processes, John M. Lande
Judging Judges And Dispute Resolution Processes, John M. Lande
Faculty Publications
This article critiques Professor Chris Guthrie's lead symposium article entitled, "Misjudging." Guthrie's article makes two major arguments. The first is a descriptive, empirical argument that judges are prone to error because of three types of "blinders" and that people underestimate the amount of such judicial error. The second argument is prescriptive, recommending that, because of these judicial blinders, disputants should consider using non-judicial dispute resolution processes generally, and particularly facilitative mediation and arbitration.This article critiques both arguments. It notes that, although Guthrie presents evidence that judges do make the kinds of errors that he describes, his article does not address …
On Misjudging And Its Implications For Criminal Defendants, Their Lawyers And The Criminal Justice System, Rodney J. Uphoff
On Misjudging And Its Implications For Criminal Defendants, Their Lawyers And The Criminal Justice System, Rodney J. Uphoff
Faculty Publications
Unquestionably, judges misjudge. Even the most arrogant of judges ultimately will concede that all judges err and, at some point, fail to apply governing law to the facts of the case accurately. Although all might agree that judges err, not all judges, lawyers, and scholars agree on how judges should behave or on what constitutes good judging. Not surprisingly, they also disagree about misjudging and the frequency with which it occurs.In his provocative article Misjudging, Chris Guthrie contends that “misjudging is more common, more systematic, and more harmful than the legal system has fully realized.” Based on my observations and …
If The Judicial Confirmation Process Is Broken, Can A Statute Fix It?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
If The Judicial Confirmation Process Is Broken, Can A Statute Fix It?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The "Federalism Five" As Supreme Court Nominees, 1971-1991, John Q. Barrett
The "Federalism Five" As Supreme Court Nominees, 1971-1991, John Q. Barrett
Faculty Publications
This article looks back at the Senate confirmation hearing testimonies of five Supreme Court nominees. Following their appointments to the Court, these justices—Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas—generally voted together in path-breaking federalism cases. They reinvigorated constitutional law limits or decreed new ones on national legislative power, supported the "sovereignty" of state governments, and thus came to be known in some circles as the Rehnquist Court's "Federalism Five." As nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, these "federalism" justices did not announce, or for the most part even much hint at, what came to …
The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins
The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.