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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Language Of Neutrality In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro Jan 2018

The Language Of Neutrality In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

At Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, then-Judge Gorsuch repeatedly insisted that judging involves no more than examining the legal materials—like statutes and precedents— and applying them to the facts of the case. There is, he emphasized, no room for a Justice’s “personal views,” and he refused even to state his agreement (or disagreement) with such iconic cases as Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. Instead, then Judge Gorsuch reiterated only that they were precedents of the Court and thus entitled to respect. Frustrating as his answers may have been to some senators, however, they differed from answers given …


The Place Of Policy In International Law, Oscar Schachter Apr 2016

The Place Of Policy In International Law, Oscar Schachter

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.


Judicial Ethics And Supreme Court Exceptionalism, Amanda Frost Jan 2013

Judicial Ethics And Supreme Court Exceptionalism, Amanda Frost

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts cast doubt on Congress’s authority to regulate the Justices’ ethical conduct, declaring that the constitutionality of such legislation has “never been tested.” Roberts’ comments not only raise important questions about the relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court, they also call into question the constitutionality of a number of existing and proposed ethics statutes. Thus, the topic deserves close attention.

This Essay contends that Congress has broad constitutional authority to regulate the Justices’ ethical conduct, just as it has exercised control over other vital aspects of the …


Novel Issues, Futile Issues, And Appelate Advocacy: The Troubling Lessons Of Bousley V. United States., Henry J. Bemporad, Sarah P. Kelly Jan 2003

Novel Issues, Futile Issues, And Appelate Advocacy: The Troubling Lessons Of Bousley V. United States., Henry J. Bemporad, Sarah P. Kelly

St. Mary's Law Journal

Bousley v. United States may require appellate attorneys to raise meritless claims in order to preserve them for habeas review in the event of a change in the law. Bousley is a habeas corpus case involving the “procedural default” doctrine. The doctrine states that a prisoner may only raise issues that have been adequately preserved, and if not preserved, they have defaulted on their claims. Bousley looked with critical hindsight at the decisions made by appellate counsel and punished the defendant for their lawyer’s failure to preserve an issue rejected by eleven courts of appeals—including the court before which the …


A Reasonable Belief That A Third Party Had Authority To Consent To A Search Is An Exception To The Warrant Requirement., S. Jeffrey Gately Jan 1990

A Reasonable Belief That A Third Party Had Authority To Consent To A Search Is An Exception To The Warrant Requirement., S. Jeffrey Gately

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Illinois v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a warrantless search is valid when police rely on consent of a third party whom they reasonably believe had common authority over an area but does not. A reasonable belief that a third party had authority to consent to a search is an exception to the warrant requirement. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people and their possessions by prohibiting unreasonable searches by government authorities. Although this protection extends to any place where a person may claim a reasonable expectation of privacy, it especially protects …


Presuming Lawyers Competent To Protect Fundamental Rights: Is It An Affordable Fiction?, Robert G. Lawson Jan 1978

Presuming Lawyers Competent To Protect Fundamental Rights: Is It An Affordable Fiction?, Robert G. Lawson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article explores the ramifications of Wainwright v. Sykes, a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1977. The broad question before the Court in Sykes concerned the extent to which state prisoners should have access to federal court by use of the writ of habeas corpus. The narrow issue before the Court concerned the impact on a prisoner's claim for habeas relief of procedural defaults (such as a failure to object to evidence, a failure to perfect an appeal, etc.) that occur in the state proceeding under attack. In considering these important issues Justice …


The Level Of Supreme Court Advocacy, Lewis F. Powell Jr. May 1974

The Level Of Supreme Court Advocacy, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Powell Speeches

No abstract provided.