Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abortion (2)
- Roe (2)
- Appellate Review (1)
- Constitutional Vesting (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
-
- Dicta (1)
- Federal Courts (1)
- Federal Question Jurisdiction (1)
- Ineffective assistance of counsel challenge (1)
- Inferior Federal Courts (1)
- Judicial Power (1)
- Judicial minimalism (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Political backlash (1)
- Procedure (1)
- State supreme court decisions (1)
- Supreme Court Jurisdiction (1)
- Trimesters (1)
- Viability (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Self-Conscious Dicta: The Origins Of Roe V. Wade’S Trimester Framework, Randy Beck
Self-Conscious Dicta: The Origins Of Roe V. Wade’S Trimester Framework, Randy Beck
Scholarly Works
One of the controversies arising from Roe v. Wade (1973), has concerned whether the conclusions undergirding the opinion's “trimester framework” should be considered part of the holding of the case, or instead classified as dicta. Different Supreme Court opinions have spoken to this question in different ways. This article reviews materials from the files of Justices who participated in Roe, seeking insight as to what the Court thought about the issue at the time. The article concludes that Justices in the Roe majority understood the opinion’s trimester framework to consist largely of dicta, unnecessary to a ruling on the constitutionality …
Asymmetrical Jurisdiction, Matthew I. Hall
Asymmetrical Jurisdiction, Matthew I. Hall
Scholarly Works
Most people — and most lawyers — would assume that the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review any determination of federal law by an inferior court, whether state or federal. And there was a time when it was so. But the Court’s recent justiciability decisions have created a perplexing jurisdictional gap — a set of cases in which state court determinations of federal law are immune from the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The Court has thus surrendered a portion of its supremacy and thereby undermined the policies that underlie its appellate jurisdiction.
In an effort to address this problem, …
Ineffective-Assistance-Of-Counsel Blues: Navigating The Muddy Waters Of Georgia Law After 2010 State Supreme Court Decisions, Ryan C. Tuck
Ineffective-Assistance-Of-Counsel Blues: Navigating The Muddy Waters Of Georgia Law After 2010 State Supreme Court Decisions, Ryan C. Tuck
Georgia Law Review
The constitutional right to counsel is a guarantee of
effective counsel, but vindicating this right through an
ineffective assistance of counsel challenge (IC) is difficult
for most defendants, especially indigent ones. In Georgia,
the difficulty of arguing a successful IAC claim is
heightened by strange rules for when such claims can be
raised. Georgia long has adhered to an IAC timing
approach that few other jurisdictions still follow and the
Supreme Court has rejected, threatening waiver if
defendants do not argue IAC as early as practicable.
When appellate counsel is new, this opportunity is the
direct appeal. In contrast, most …
Fueling Controversy, Randy Beck
Fueling Controversy, Randy Beck
Scholarly Works
In a recent Yale Law Journal article, Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel question the received wisdom that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade generated a political backlash, inflaming conflict over abortion and damaging the political process. The evidence they highlight shows that political conflict over abortion predated the Roe opinion, spurred by the Catholic Church and by Republican Party strategists seeking to foster party realignment. This enriched picture of the political and social landscape at the time of the decision undermines any simplistic suggestion that Roe served as “the sole cause of backlash” or “single-handedly caused societal polarization …
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Georgia Law Review
The Third Branch of our federal government has
traditionally been viewed as the least of the three in
terms of the scope of its power and authority. This
view finds validation when one considers the
extensive authority that Congress has been permitted
to exercise over the Federal Judiciary. From the
beginning, Congress has understood itself to possess
the authority to limit the jurisdiction of inferior
federal courts. The Supreme Court has acquiesced to
this understanding of congressional authority
without much thought or explanation.
It may be possible, however, to imagine a more
robust vision of the Judicial Power through closer …