Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Supremacy Clause As Structural Safeguard Of Federalism: State Judges And International Law In The Post-Erie Era, Sam F. Halabi Oct 2012

The Supremacy Clause As Structural Safeguard Of Federalism: State Judges And International Law In The Post-Erie Era, Sam F. Halabi

Faculty Publications

Against a backdrop of state constitutional and legislative initiatives aimed at limiting judicial use of international law, this Article argues that state judges have, by and large, interpreted treaties and customary international law so as to narrow their effect on state law-making prerogatives. Where state judges have used international law more liberally, they have done so to give effect to state executive and legislative objectives. Not only does this thesis suggest that the trend among state legislatures to limit state judges' use of international law is self-defeating, it also gives substance to a relatively unexplored structural safeguard of federalism: state ...


Caperton, Due Process, And Judicial Duty: Recusal Oversight In Patrons’ Cases, Stephen M. Sheppard Jan 2011

Caperton, Due Process, And Judicial Duty: Recusal Oversight In Patrons’ Cases, Stephen M. Sheppard

Faculty Articles

Two reasons may support the result in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. First, though Caperton may indeed interject greater federal oversight of state judges as well as new oversight of the judges of courts of last resort, Caperton does not add a new review for most judges. Second, the due process of law must protect litigants from apparent corruption, or it cannot protect them from real corruption.

Caperton arose in a messy lawsuit between two West Virginia energy companies—Harman Mining, headed by Hugh Caperton, and the A.T. Massey Coal Company, headed by Don Blankenship—which had ...


Forward: Sandra Day O'Connor, Earl F. Nelson, And State Judicial Selection And Retention Systems, R. Lawrence Dessem Jul 2009

Forward: Sandra Day O'Connor, Earl F. Nelson, And State Judicial Selection And Retention Systems, R. Lawrence Dessem

Faculty Publications

In difficult cases, in unpopular cases, in cases that may draw criticism from the executive branch of government, the legislature, the media, or the general populace, it is essential that judges be insulated from public pressure. However much we believe in the strength and integrity of the human spirit, we cannot expect judges to do justice without establishing an institutional framework that guarantees them that their next decision, however loathsome or unpopular, will not be their last.


The Politics Of Merit Selection, Brian T. Fitzpatrick Jan 2009

The Politics Of Merit Selection, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this Article, I undertake an evaluation of a method of judicial selection known as "merit selection." The merit system is distinctive from the other systems of judicial selection in the powerful role it accords lawyers. Proponents of the merit system contend that it is superior to the other forms of judicial selection -- elections or appointment by elected officials -- because lawyers are more likely to select judges on the basis of "merit" and less likely to select judges on the basis of "politics" (i.e., the personal ideological preferences of judicial candidates) than are voters or elected officials. But even ...


Reassessing The Purposes Of Federal Question Jurisdiction, John F. Preis Jan 2007

Reassessing The Purposes Of Federal Question Jurisdiction, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

For ages, judges and legal academics have claimed that federal question jurisdiction has three purposes: to provide litigants with a judge experienced in federal law, to protect litigants from state court hostility toward federal claims, and to preserve uniformity in federal law. Because federal claims, for the most part, have always been cognizable in state courts, these purposes imply that state courts are less experienced, more hostile, and more likely to adjudicate federal law in ways that decrease the uniformity of federal law. Despite the ongoing allegiance to this conception of federal question jurisdictionand by implication, state court adjudication of ...