Law Commons^™

Justices Could Do Well To Heed A Father’S Example, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Exposing Judges' Unaccountability And Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering The News And Publishing Field Of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting, Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

This study analyzes official statistics of the Federal Judiciary, legal provisions, and other publicly filed documents. It discusses how federal judges’ life-appointment; de facto unimpeachability and irremovability; self-immunization from discipline through abuse of the Judiciary’s statutory self-policing authority; abuse of its vast Information Technology resources to interfere with their complainants’ communications; the secrecy in which they cover their adjudicative, administrative, disciplinary, and policy-making acts; and third parties’ fear of their individual and close rank retaliation render judges unaccountable. Their unaccountability makes their abuse of power riskless; the enormous amount of the most insidious corruptor over which they rule, money!, …

Exposing Judges' Unaccountability And Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering The News And Publishing Field Of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting, Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

This study analyzes official statistics of the Federal Judiciary, legal provisions, and other publicly filed documents. It discusses how federal judges’ life-appointment; de facto unimpeachability and irremovability; self-immunization from discipline through abuse of the Judiciary’s statutory self-policing authority; abuse of its vast Information Technology resources to interfere with their complainants’ communications; the secrecy in which they cover their adjudicative, administrative, disciplinary, and policy-making acts; and third parties’ fear of their individual and close rank retaliation render judges unaccountable. Their unaccountability makes their abuse of power riskless; the enormous amount of the most insidious corruptor over which they rule, money!, …

Exposing Judges' Unaccountability And Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering The News And Publishing Field Of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting, Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

This study analyzes official statistics of the Federal Judiciary, legal provisions, and other publicly filed documents. It discusses how federal judges’ life-appointment; de facto unimpeachability and irremovability; self-immunization from discipline through abuse of the Judiciary’s statutory self-policing authority; abuse of its vast Information Technology resources to interfere with their complainants’ communications; the secrecy in which they cover their adjudicative, administrative, disciplinary, and policy-making acts; and third parties’ fear of their individual and close rank retaliation render judges unaccountable. Their unaccountability makes their abuse of power riskless; the enormous amount of the most insidious corruptor over which they rule, money!, …

Equilibrium, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

No abstract provided.

Life And Death Decision-Making: Judges V. Legislators As Sources Of Law In Bioethics, Charles Baron

Charles H. Baron

In some situations, courts may be better sources of new law than legislatures. Some support for this proposition is provided by the performance of American courts in the development of law regarding the “right to die.” When confronted with the problems presented by mid-Twentieth Century technological advances in prolonging human life, American legislators were slow to act. It was the state common law courts, beginning with Quinlan in 1976, that took primary responsibility for gradually crafting new legal principles that excepted withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment from the application of general laws dealing with homicide and suicide. These courts, like the …

The Battle For The Soul Of International Shoe, Eric H. Schepard

Eric H Schepard

In 2011, Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro repeatedly cited International Shoe v. Washington, a 1945 decision that transformed the law of personal jurisdiction. Kennedy believed that International Shoe broadly supported his position that a state may hear a suit arising from a within-state workplace injury to its citizen only if the foreign (out-of-state) corporate defendant specifically markets its products to that state. This article reexamines the jurisprudence of International Shoe’s author, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, to argue that Kennedy hijacked International Shoe’s half-buried legacy of judicial restraint. Scholars have suggested that Stone hoped …

Valuing Our Discordant Constitutional Discourse: Autonomous-Text Constitutionalism And The Jewish Legal Tradition, Shlomo C. Pill

Shlomo C. Pill

This paper considers the viability of autonomous-text constitutionalism, a constitutional interpretive and adjudicative theory based on Hans Georg-Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. As the paper explains, this theory is premised on the subjectivity of all interpretive activity; it admits the legitimacy of a wide spectrum of reasonable interpretations of the Constitution, each given their unique character by the dialectical merging of experiential horizons between the fixed text and individual interpreter. This theory embraces a plurality of constitutional meanings in theory, limited by the need for unity in national spheres of constitutional practice. Such practical certainty is achieved by our empowering judicial institutions …

U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim In The “War On Terror”, Wayne Mccormack

Wayne McCormack

One of the principal victims in the U.S. so-called "war on terror" has been the independence of the U.S. Judiciary. Time and again, challenges to assertedly illegal conduct on the part of government officials have been turned aside without addressing the merits, either because of overt deference to the Government or because of special doctrines such as state secrets and standing requirements. This paper catalogs the principal cases first by the nature of the government action challenged and then by the special doctrines invoked. The U.S. judiciary has virtually relinquished its valuable role of judicial review. In the face of …

The Shield Of Rights, The Sword Of Disorder: Robert H. Jackson And Civil Liberties, George B. Crawford

George B. Crawford

No abstract provided.

The Coming Constitutional Yo-Yo? Elite Opinion, Polarization, And The Direction Of Judicial Decision Making, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

This Article offers a more sophisticated account of elite theory that incorporates the crucial insights underlying claims that Justices with life tenure will protect minority rights and claims that the Supreme Court follows the election returns. Put simply, the direction of judicial decision making at a given time reflects the views of the most affluent and highly educated members of the dominant national coalition. The values that animate the elite members of the dominant national coalition help explain the direction of judicial decision making for the last eighty years. During the mid-twentieth century, most Republican and Democratic elites held more …

What’S Age Got To Do With It? Supreme Court Appointees And The Long Run Location Of The Supreme Court Median Justice, Matthew L. Spitzer

Matthew L Spitzer

For approximately the past 40 years Republican Presidents have appointed younger Justices than have Democratic Presidents. Depending on how one does the accounting, the average age difference will vary, but will not go away. This Article posits that Republicans appointing younger justices than Democrats may have caused a rightward shift in the Supreme Court. We use computer simulations to show that if the trend continues the rightward shift will likely increase. We also to produce some very rough estimates of the size of the ideological shift, contingent on the size of the age differential. In addition, we show that the …

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

The United States Constitution And Its History Through The Barristers And Political, Allen E. Shoenberger

Allen E Shoenberger

No abstract provided.

Presumed Imminence: Judicial Risk Assessment In The Post-9/11 World, Avidan Cover

Avidan Cover

Court opinions in the terrorism context are often distinguished by fact finding that relates to risk assessment. These risk assessments‑inherently policy decisions‑are influenced by cultural cognition and by cognitive errors common to probability determinations, particularly those made regarding highly dangerous and emotional events. In a post-9/11 world, in which prevention and intelligence are prioritized over prosecution, courts are more likely to overstate the potential harm, neglect the probability, and presume the imminence of terrorist attacks. As a result courts apt to defer to the government and require less evidence in support of measures that curtail civil liberties. This Article takes …

Captured Legislatures And Public-Interested Courts, Patrick Luff

Patrick A. Luff

According to public choice, the predominant paradigm of modern regulatory theory, legislative activity provides benefits to small, organized interests at the expense of larger groups. In practice, this means that interest groups are often able to benefit themselves at the expense of the public good. This model has been extended to the courts, which are described as implicit or explicit actors in the wealth-transfer process. Applying public-choice theory to the courts, however, overlooks the structural differences between the federal judiciary and Congress, as well as the insights of judicial decisionmaking theory. Not only do judges receive better and more complete …

“Nixon’S Sabotage”: How Politics Pushed The “Discriminatory Purpose” Requirement Into Equal Protection Law, Danieli Evans

Danieli Evans

This article describes the way that politics—resistance from the elected branches coupled with President Nixon appointing Chief Justice Burger—shaped the Court’s unanimous decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 402 U.S. 1 (1971), a school desegregation case that played a crucial role in limiting the forms of state action considered unconstitutional discrimination. Chief Justice Burger defied longstanding Supreme Court procedure to assign himself the majority opinion even though he disagreed with the majority outcome. Justice Douglas alleged that he did this “in order to write Nixon’s view of freedom of choice into the law.” Justice Burger’s opinion laid the foundation for limiting …

Controversial Five-To-Four Supreme Court Decisions And The Majority Of One, Steven I. Friedland

Steven I. Friedland

Five-to-Four Supreme Court decisions in controversial cases have sparked public backlash in recent years, which has served to reframe the decisions as partisan politics. While judicial decision-making is designed to follow the doctrine of stare decisis, the view that Supreme Court justices have become hemmed in by their ideologies – with perhaps the notable exception of the swing vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy -- has been popularized in the media and blogs. While the Court’s decisions might be intersubjective, meaning bounded by moveable and socially constructed understandings, the real danger is for the justices to feed the perception that the …

Chief Justice Roberts' Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory Magarian

Gregory P. Magarian

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate under the Taxing Clause. Numerous academic and popular commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his political courage and institutional pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. The essay contends that the opinion is, in two distinct senses, fundamentally …

The Chilean Constitutional Court And The 2005 Reform: A Castling Between Career Judges And Academics, Diego G. Pardow

Diego G. Pardow

Using a series of logistic regression analyses, this paper argues that the Chilean Constitutional Court is becoming more active in asserting constitutional rights. Before the reform, the pattern was favoring the incumbent government and deciding the cases by unanimity. After the reform the frequency of dissenting opinions increased, while the level of deference with the government decreased. We also argue, however, that any political analysis should proceed with caution. Career judges dominated the pre-reform Court, whereas justices coming from an academic environment were the ones filling those positions after the reform. Interestingly, Chilean judges have a long-standing reputation of being …

The Risky Interplay Of Tort And Criminal Law: Punitive Damages, Daniel M. Braun

Daniel M Braun

The rise of modern mass tort litigation in the U.S. has transformed punitive damages into something of a “hot button” issue. Since the size of punitive damage awards grew so dramatically in the past half century, this private law remedy has begun to involve issues of constitutional rights that traditionally pertained to criminal proceedings. This has created a risky interplay between tort and criminal law, and courts have thus been trying to find ways to properly manage punitive damage awards. The once rapidly expanding universe of punitive damages is therefore beginning to contract. There remain, however, very serious difficulties. Despite …

Why Justice Kennedy's Opinion In Windsor Short-Changed Same-Sex Couples, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision in United States v. Windsor—invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act—made the same mistake as his decision in Lawrence v. Texas: it relied upon abstract notions of ‘liberty’ rather than the text-based guarantee of equality. Same-sex couples deserve more. They are entitled to equal treatment under the United States Constitution. Bans on same-sex marriage cannot be supported by a rational state interest, and instead constitute impermissible discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. By issuing a doctrinally muddled decision that included discussions of federalism, liberty, due process, and equal protection, Justice Kennedy missed an …

Judicial Independence In Post-Conflict Iraq: Establishing The Rule Of Law In An Islamic Constitutional Democracy, David Pimentel, Brian Anderson

David Pimentel

Contemporary Iraq is facing the full range of challenges that come with post-conflict transitional justice, including “paving the road toward peace and reconciliation” and establishing a functional state, characterized by the Rule of Law. Prospects for the establishment of an independent judiciary in Iraq are obstructed by a number of factors, including (1) how to apply the explicit recognition of the law of Islam in the Iraqi Constitution, (2) the inability to pass legislation on the Federal Courts of Iraq, leaving several provisions of the Iraqi Constitution unimplemented, and other critical elements of judicial independence unaddressed, including provisions for tenure, …

Instrumentalist And Holmesian Voices In The Rhetoric Of Reapportionment: The Opinions Of Justices Brennan And Frankfurter In Baker V. Carr, Carlo A. Pedrioli

Carlo A. Pedrioli

In his autobiography, Chief Justice Earl Warren described Baker v.Carr as “the most important case of [his] tenure on the Court.” Following Brown v. Board of Education by eight years, Baker was the second “blockbuster” case of the Warren Court. Warren felt that, if the progeny of Baker had preceded Brown, Brown would have been unnecessary.

As with other major Supreme Court cases, Baker featured rhetoric from highly influential justices, two of whom in this case were Justice William Brennan and Justice Felix Frankfurter. Justice Brennan would write the groundbreaking opinion for the Court that would be part of “the …