Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Law

Beyond Quality: First Principles In Judicial Selection And Their Application To A Commission-Based Selection System, Jeffrey D. Jackson Jan 2007

Beyond Quality: First Principles In Judicial Selection And Their Application To A Commission-Based Selection System, Jeffrey D. Jackson

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This article discusses the principles that the judicial system should advance in the selection of its judges. In addition to judicial quality, there are five other “first principles” that should be advanced in an optimal selection system: independence, accountability, representativeness, legitimacy, and transparency.


A View From The Ground: A Reform Group’S Perspective On The Ongoing Effort To Achieve Merit Selection Of Judges, Shira J. Goodman, Lynn A. Marks Jan 2007

A View From The Ground: A Reform Group’S Perspective On The Ongoing Effort To Achieve Merit Selection Of Judges, Shira J. Goodman, Lynn A. Marks

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This article describes the history of judicial selection in the state of Pennsylvania. It describes the judicial selection reform movement and the growth of the organization Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts ("PMC") which devises solutions to meet the various challenges to judicial integrity in Pennsylvania. It focuses on the merit system that PMC has been trying to achieve for Pennsylvania's appellate courts.


Enhancing Diversity In An Appointive System Of Selecting Judges, Leo M. Romero Jan 2007

Enhancing Diversity In An Appointive System Of Selecting Judges, Leo M. Romero

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article examines the different measures that states, with a particular focus on New Mexico, have adopted in order to enhance diversity in their appointive systems and proposes ways to structure an appointive system that gives due consideration to concerns about diversity. This Article concludes that an appointive system should be designed to require consideration of diversity in the composition of nominating commissions and in the evaluation of applicants.


Appointing Judges The European Way, Mary L. Volcansek Jan 2007

Appointing Judges The European Way, Mary L. Volcansek

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article looks at methods of judicial selection in Europe as a way to contrast and perhaps better understand and improve the systems of judicial selection used in the United States. The article argues that in Europe, judicial independence is prized above and beyond any other possible positive trait. The democratic legitimacy of European judges derives from the intimate connection between democracy and the rule of law. Legitimacy does not attach, in the public eye, to a single political institution, but rather to the system as a whole.


A Cancer On The Republic: The Assault Upon Impartiality Of State Courts And The Challenge To Judicial Selection, Donald L. Burnett Jan 2007

A Cancer On The Republic: The Assault Upon Impartiality Of State Courts And The Challenge To Judicial Selection, Donald L. Burnett

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article examines judicial impartiality in the context of the state courts. Section I endeavors to show how impartial state courts are essential to fulfilling the constitutional guarantees of a republican form of government and of due process and equal protection of the law. Section II describes the current assault upon the impartiality of state courts, and Section III suggests several ways in which this cancer on the republic can be slowed or reversed—by specific actions within, or related to, the judicial selection process.


Double-Consciousness In Constitutional Adjudication, Richard A. Primus Jan 2007

Double-Consciousness In Constitutional Adjudication, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Constitutional theorists are familiar with epistemic and consequentialist reasons why judges might allow their decision making to be shaped by strongly held public opinion. The epistemic approach treats public opinion as an expert indicator, while the consequentialistapproach counsels judges to compromise legally correct interpretations so as not to antagonize a hostile public. But there is also a third reason, which we can think ofas constitutive. In limited circumstances, the fact that the public strongly holds a given view can be one of the factors that together constitute the correct answer to a constitutional question. In those circumstances, what the public …