Law Commons^™

The Problem With Procedure: Some Inconvenient Truth About Aspirational Goals, George Rutherglen

San Diego Law Review

Procedure aspires to lofty goals: fairness, efficiency, and speedy adjudication, or so says Rule 1. The rule states the aims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in admirably succinct terms: “They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Who could oppose any of these goals? Yet for all its virtues as a concise summary of what the Federal Rules seek to achieve, this provision cannot be taken literally as a guide to interpretation. The goals it aspires to are, on even a cursory examination, deeply inconsistent with each …

Judicial Deference And Political Power In Fourteenth Amendment And Dormant Commerce Clause Cases, F. Italia Patti

San Diego Law Review

The Supreme Court lacks a coherent approach to deciding how much to defer to state legislatures when reviewing allegedly unconstitutional legislation. The Court grants very little deference to state legislatures in dormant Commerce Clause cases but significant deference to state legislatures in Fourteenth Amendment cases. The Court has never acknowledged this divergence, let alone justified it. Scholars have also failed to note this divergence or explore whether it can be justified. By ignoring this divergence, the Court and scholars have ignored a situation that exacerbates existing power imbalances and fails to recognize a more promising approach to judicial deference.

This …

Prevention As The Primary Goal Of Sentencing: The Modern Case For Indeterminate Dispositions In Criminal Cases, Christopher Slobogin

San Diego Law Review

This Article contends that properly constituted, indeterminate sentencing is both a morally defensible method of preventing crime and the optimal regime for doing so, at least for crimes against person and most other street crimes.

More specifically, the position defended in this Article is that, once a person is convicted of an offense, the duration and nature of sentence should be based on a back-end decision made by experts in recidivism reduction, within broad ranges set by the legislature. Compared to determinate sentencing, the sentencing regime advanced in this Article relies on wider sentence ranges and explicit assessments of risk, …

Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium: The Fundamental Right To A Remedy Under Due Process, Tracy A. Thomas

San Diego Law Review

This essay is part of the 2003 Remedies Forum symposium comprised of international remedies scholars addressing the topic of equitable relief in the fifty years since Brown v. Board of Education. It may be true as other scholars have argued that since the time of Brown, institutional defendants have won at the expense of plaintiffs. Defendants have learned that delay and defiance work. The U.S. Supreme Court has adopted a standard for ordering equitable relief that significantly defers to defendant wrongdoers at the plaintiffs' expense. Epithets of activist courts and judicial legislation have colored the existing scholarship and portrayed remedial …

Why Repeal Of The Death Tax Means The Second Demise Of Substantive Due Process, Paul E. Mcgreal

San Diego Law Review

Death and taxes. For the first two centuries of American democracy, the former has been the province of Providence, the latter the concern of Congress. Congress has focused on the Internal Revenue Code, leaving death to the aging process, human folly, religion, and Darwinian forces. In a stunning power grab, Congress recently upset this order, asserting control over both domains. No longer satisfied to allow life to run its

course, Congress has sought to hasten accrual of the Death Tax. simply, Congress has sanctioned the killing of rich Baby Boomers.

Substantive Due Process And Parental Corporal Punishment: Democracy And The Excluded Child, Mary Kate Kearney

San Diego Law Review

This Article questions whether parents have a right to corporally punish their children, and if they do, how this right should be defined. The author argues that parents should not receive the heightened constitutional protection conferred by a fundamental right. She argues that the political process already adequately protects the interests of parents in disciplining their children. To the extent that the political process chooses to permit parents to administer reasonable corporal punishment, this Article proposes a five-part test that courts can use to determine whether an act of corporal punishment fits within that reasonableness standard. This test is more …