Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Philosophical Defense Of Judicial Minimalism, Cory A. Evans
A Philosophical Defense Of Judicial Minimalism, Cory A. Evans
Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects
This dissertation analyzes, criticizes and ultimately defends judicial minimalism, a contemporary theory of judging that has come to the forefront of American jurisprudence in the early part of the 21st Century. In this dissertation I offer the first formal definition of judicial minimalism, apply that definition to case law and the literature, refute many objections to judicial minimalism including objections based on tough case counterexamples, offer a new version of the argument of epistemic humility and offer a new argument in support of judicial minimalism from the perspective of law and economics.
Rwu First Amendment Blog: Dean Yelnosky's Blog: Ruling Could Destroy Labor Unions As We Know Them 2-26-2018, Michael J. Yelnosky
Rwu First Amendment Blog: Dean Yelnosky's Blog: Ruling Could Destroy Labor Unions As We Know Them 2-26-2018, Michael J. Yelnosky
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Law Library Newsletters/Blog
No abstract provided.
The Language Of Neutrality In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro
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 …
Irreconcilable Differences? Whole Woman’S Health, Gonzales, And Justice Kennedy’S Vision Of American Abortion Jurisprudence, O. Carter Snead, Laura Wolk
Irreconcilable Differences? Whole Woman’S Health, Gonzales, And Justice Kennedy’S Vision Of American Abortion Jurisprudence, O. Carter Snead, Laura Wolk
Journal Articles
A law is unconstitutional if it "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."' Twenty-five years have elapsed since a plurality of the Supreme Court articulated this undue burden standard in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, yet its contours remain elusive. Notably, two current members of the Court-Justice Breyer and Justice Kennedy-seem to fundamentally differ in their understanding of what Casey requires and permits. In Gonzales v. Carhart, Justice Kennedy emphasized a wide range of permissible state interests implicated by abortion and indicated …