Law Commons^™

The Special Norms Thesis: Why Congress's Constitutional Decision-Making Should Be Disciplined By More Than The Usual Norms Of Politics, Mark Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Choice Architecture For Healthier Insurance Choices: Ordering And Partitioning Can Improve Decisions, Benedict G.C. Dellaert, Eric J. Johnson, Tom Baker

All Faculty Scholarship

Health insurance decisions are a challenge for many consumers and influence welfare, health outcomes, and longevity. Two choice architecture tools are examined that can improve these decisions: informed ordering of options (from best to worst) and choice set partitioning. It is hypothesized that these tools can improve choices by changing: (1) decision focus: the options in a set on which consumers focus their attention, and (2) decision strategy: how consumers integrate the different attributes that make up the options. The first experiment focuses on the mediating role of the hypothesized decision processes on consumer decision outcomes. The outcome results are …

Law School News: Groundbreaking Judicial Scholar To Deliver Rwu Law Commencement Address April 10, 2019, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendement Blog: Jared Goldstein's Blog: The First Amendment And The Foxy Lady 01-08-2019, Jared A. Goldstein

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

The Post-Truth First Amendment, Sarah C. Haan

Scholarly Articles

Post-truthism is widely understood as a political problem. In this Article, I argue that post-truthism also presents a constitutional law problem—not a hypothetical concern, but a current influence on First Amendment law. Post-truthism, which teaches that evidence-based reasoning lacks value, offers a normative framework for regulating information. Although post-truthism has become a popular culture trope, I argue that we should take it seriously as a theory of decision making and information use, and as a basis for law.

This Article uses the example of compelled speech to explore how post-truth rhetoric and values are being integrated into law. When the …

He New Oral Argument: Justices As Advocates, Matthew Sag, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article conducts a comprehensive empirical inquiry of fifty-five years of Supreme Court oral argument, showing that judicial activity has increased dramatically, in terms of words used, duration of speech, interruptions made, and comments proffered. The Court is asking no more questions of advocates; instead, the justices are providing conclusions and rebutting their colleagues. In addition, the justices direct more of their comments and questions to the side with whom they ultimately disagree. Furthermore, “losing” justices, be it ideological camps that are outnumbered on the Court or dissenters in specific cases, use oral arguments to push back against the dominant …