Law | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™

Reactions To Opression: Jurisgenesis In The Jurispathic State, John Valery White Jan 1991

Reactions To Opression: Jurisgenesis In The Jurispathic State, John Valery White

Scholarly Works

This Note offers a model for analyzing the political and legal traditions of oppressed communities and developing a jurisprudence that accurately reflects the communities' views. Under this model, each of these diverse views can be understood from one of four perspectives: parochialism, fatalism, neo-liberalism, and individualism. These four perspectives are defined by an oppressed community's members' aspirations for liberation. Different ideals of justice and liberation underlie each perspective. Though touching on some of the communities' sentiments, the examinations of scholars of color have thus far been largely piecemeal, overemphasizing certain views, unwittingly combining divergent views, or marginalizing and dismissing unpopular …

Go to article

Feminist Jurisprudence: Why Law Must Consider Women's Perspectives, Ann Juergens Jan 1991

Feminist Jurisprudence: Why Law Must Consider Women's Perspectives, Ann Juergens

Faculty Scholarship

A growing number of scholars are asking how the law would be different if it took women's points of view and experiences into account. Feminist Jurisprudence argues that we must look at the norms embedded in our legal system and rethink the law. It is about being inclusive of women, and of all people who differ from the norms of the law as it is today. The endeavor will necessarily shake up established relations between family, the workplace and the state. Lawyers, judges, and legislators should get ready for the changes.

Go to article

"I Vote This Way Because I'M Wrong": The Supreme Court Justice As Epimenides, John M. Rogers Jan 1991

"I Vote This Way Because I'M Wrong": The Supreme Court Justice As Epimenides, John M. Rogers

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Possibly the most unsettling phenomenon in the Supreme Court's 1988 term was Justice White's decision to vote contrary to his own exhaustively stated reasoning in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. His unexplained decision to vote against the result of his own analysis lends support to those who argue that law, or at least constitutional law, is fundamentally indeterminate. Proponents of the indeterminacy argument sometimes base their position on the allegedly inescapable inconsistency of decisions made by a multi-member court. There is an answer to the inconsistency argument, but it founders if justices sometimes vote, without explanation, on the basis of …

Go to article

Forensic Science: The Need For Regulation, Randolph N. Jonakait Jan 1991