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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

Speaking Outdoors, Lewis H. Larue Jul 2003

Speaking Outdoors, Lewis H. Larue

Scholarly Articles

Not available.


Constitutional Law: The Garvee Bonds Case And Executive Power: Breakthrough Or Blip?, Andrew C. Spiropoulos Jan 2003

Constitutional Law: The Garvee Bonds Case And Executive Power: Breakthrough Or Blip?, Andrew C. Spiropoulos

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.


Disarming The Confirmation Process, Michael M. Gallagher Jan 2003

Disarming The Confirmation Process, Michael M. Gallagher

Cleveland State Law Review

To improve the current process and eliminate the bitter nature of confirmation hearings, Senators should not consider a nominee's ideology in determining whether to vote for that nominee. Ideological scrutiny lacks historical and constitutional support; it has led to repeated, prolonged battles that threaten to draw the confirmation process into a dangerous stalemate. Removing ideology from judicial nominations would return the confirmation process to its original understanding, one in which the President enjoys the dominant role. Those who argue that allowing the President, not the Senate, to consider a nominee's ideology would harm the federal judiciary and ignore ...


Non-Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

Non-Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professor Mark Tushnet challenges the view that democratic constitutionalism requires courts to dominate constitutional review. He provides three diverse examples of non-judicial institutions involved in constitutional review and examines the institutional incentives to get the analysis" right." Through these examples, Professor Tushnet argues that non-judicial actors may perform constitutional review that is accurate, effective, and capable of gaining public acceptance. Professor Tushnet recommends that scholars conduct further research into non-judicial review to determine whether ultimately more or less judicial review is necessary in constitutional democracies.


New Forms Of Judicial Review And The Persistence Of Rights - And Democracy-Based Worries, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

New Forms Of Judicial Review And The Persistence Of Rights - And Democracy-Based Worries, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Recent developments in judicial review have raised the possibility that the debate over judicial supremacy versus legislative supremacy might be transformed into one about differing institutions to implement judicial review. Rather than posing judicial review against legislative supremacy, the terms of the debate might be over having institutions designed to exercise forms of judicial review that accommodate both legislative supremacy and judicial implementation of constitutional limits. After examining some of these institutional developments in Canada, South Africa, and Great Britain, this Article asks whether these accommodations, which attempt to pursue a middle course, have characteristic instabilities that will in the ...


Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The invention in the late twentieth century of what I call weak-form systems of judicial review provides us with the chance to see in a new light some traditional debates within U.S. constitutional law and theory, which are predicated on the fact that the United States has strong-form judicial review. Strong- and weak-form systems operate on the level of constitutional design, in the sense that their characteristics are specified in constitutional documents or in deep-rooted constitutional traditions. After sketching the differences between strong- and weak-form systems, I turn to design features that operate at the next lower level. Here ...


Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr. Jan 2003

Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.

Articles

The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested ...


Constitutional Existence Conditions And Judicial Review, Matthew D. Adler, Michael C. Dorf Jan 2003

Constitutional Existence Conditions And Judicial Review, Matthew D. Adler, Michael C. Dorf

Faculty Scholarship

Although critics of judicial review sometimes call for making the entire Constitution nonjusticiable, many familiar norms of constitutional law state what we call "existence conditions" that are necessarily enforced by judicial actors charged with the responsibility of applying, and thus as a preliminary step, identifying, propositions of sub-constitutional law such as statutes. Article I, Section 7, which sets forth the procedures by which a bill becomes a law, is an example: a putative law that did not go through the Article I, Section 7 process and does not satisfy an alternative test for legal validity (such as the treaty-making provision ...


Confidentiality's Constitutionality: The Incursion On Judicial Powers To Regulate Parties In Court-Connected Mediation, Maureen A. Weston Prof. Dec 2002

Confidentiality's Constitutionality: The Incursion On Judicial Powers To Regulate Parties In Court-Connected Mediation, Maureen A. Weston Prof.

Maureen A Weston

This Article explores the interplay between mediation confidentiality legislation and judicial powers to regulate participant conduct in the pretrial process. Part II describes the role of the court in monitoring parties' conduct in distinct settlement-related processes, such as private settlement negotiations, judicial settlement conferences, court-connected arbitration, and court-connected mediation, as well as the corresponding but varied confidentiality protection accorded these processes. Part III examines judicial decisions analyzing the tension between mediation confidentiality and judicial power to monitor and sanction misconduct in a settlement or court-connected mediation setting, specifically comparing the approach used by the California Supreme Court in Foxgate Homeowners ...