Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Gender, Affirmative Action, And Recruitment To The Federal Bench, Elliot E. Slotnick
Gender, Affirmative Action, And Recruitment To The Federal Bench, Elliot E. Slotnick
Golden Gate University Law Review
In the analysis which follows, an effort will be made to assess the historical record of the appointment of women to the federal bench. Extended consideration will be given to the Carter administration's judicial recruitment behavior in an effort to assess the thrust and implications of the President's affirmative action concerns. How successful was Carter in appointing women to the federal judiciary and how did the women appointees differ, if at all, from their male colleagues? Do women appointees follow a different "path" to the bench than males? Did affirmative action "dilute" the quality of the federal bench as many …
Judging Cercla: An Empirical Analysis Of Circuit Court Decision-Making, Clifford Chad Henson
Judging Cercla: An Empirical Analysis Of Circuit Court Decision-Making, Clifford Chad Henson
Clifford Chad Henson
Abstract: Political scientists, and increasingly legal scholars, have become skeptical of judges’ attempts to explain decisions based exclusively on applying fact to law, and have attempted to identify factors that influence judicial decision-making. This study isolates a set of cases dealing with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and identifies variable sets corresponding to factors one would expect to be significant under competing models of judicial decision-making. While both the legal and extra-legal model independently explain some judicial decision-making, the legal model has more explanatory power and adds significantly to the explanatory power of the extra-legal …
The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman
The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman
Faculty Publications
The Reconstruction-era case of United States v. Klein remains the object of a “cult” among commentators and advocates, who see it as a powerful separation of powers precedent. In fact, Klein is a myth—actually two related myths. One is that it is opaque and meaninglessly indeterminate because, given its confusing and disjointed language, its precise doctrinal contours are indecipherable; the other is that Klein is vigorous precedent, likely to be used by a court to invalidate likely federal legislation. Close analysis of Klein, its progeny, and past scholarship uncovers three identifiable core limitations on congressional control over the workings of …