Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Ahamdou Sadio Diallo (1)
- Appellate advocacy (1)
- Appointment (1)
- Branches of government (1)
- Compensation (1)
-
- Confirmation (1)
- Countermajoritarianism (1)
- Declaratory (1)
- Diversity (1)
- Federal Courts of Appeals (1)
- Federal appellate practice (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Health (1)
- International Court of Justice (1)
- International law (1)
- Judge (1)
- Judicial selection (1)
- Judicial vacancies (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Majoritarianism (1)
- Mandate (1)
- Material injury (1)
- Nevada (1)
- Nomination (1)
- Obama (1)
- Oral arguments (1)
- Philip Pro (1)
- Preemption (1)
- Procedural reform (1)
- Republic of Congo (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Saluting Judge Philip Pro's Quarter Century Of Nevada District Service, Carl W. Tobias
Saluting Judge Philip Pro's Quarter Century Of Nevada District Service, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
United States District Judge Philip M. Pro recently assumed senior status after more than two dozen years of exemplary service-five as chief judge-on the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the federal trial court that serves the entire state of Nevada. Everyone who knows Judge Pro understands that senior status will not mean semi-retirement for him because he will continue devoting his tremendous energy to assuring that the District of Nevada promptly, inexpensively, and fairly resolves the myriad challenging cases on its docket.
Introductory Note To The International Court Of Justice: Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic Of Guinea V. Democratic Republic Of The Congo) Compensation Owed By The Democratic Republic Of The Congo To The Republic Of Guinea, Chiara Giorgetti
Law Faculty Publications
On June 12, 2012, the International Court of Justice ("ICJ" or the "Court") ordered the Republic of the Congo ("DRC") to pay the Republic of Guinea ("Guinea") U.S. $95,000 in compensation for material and non-material injury to Guinea's national Ahmadou Sadio Diallo. The Judgment is notable for several reasons. First, the mere fact that the Court fixed an amount of compensation owned to Guinea is relevant, as this is only the second time in the history of the Court that such a measure was adopted. Second, in reaching its decision, the Court relied heavily on decisions of other international courts …
Upside-Down Judicial Review, Corinna Barrett Lain
Upside-Down Judicial Review, Corinna Barrett Lain
Law Faculty Publications
The countermajoritarian difficulty assumes that the democratically elected branches are majoritarian and the unelected Supreme Court is not. But sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes it is the elected branches that are out of sync with majority will and the Supreme Court that bridges the gap, turning the conventional understanding of the Court's role on its head. Instead of a countermajoritarian Court checking the majoritarian branches, we see a majoritarian Court checking the not-so-majoritarian branches, enforcing prevailing norms when the representative branches do not. What emerges is a distinctly majoritarian, upside-down understanding of judicial review. This Article illustrates, explains, and …
The Decline Of Oral Argument In The Federal Courts Of Appeals: A Modest Proposal For Reform, David R. Cleveland, Steven Wisotsky
The Decline Of Oral Argument In The Federal Courts Of Appeals: A Modest Proposal For Reform, David R. Cleveland, Steven Wisotsky
Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Ghost That Slayed The Mandate, Kevin C. Walsh
The Ghost That Slayed The Mandate, Kevin C. Walsh
Law Faculty Publications
Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed …
Justifying Diversity In The Federal Judiciary, Carl W. Tobias
Justifying Diversity In The Federal Judiciary, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
This Essay thus scrutinizes Obama’s judicial selection effort, which confirms many ideas that Scherer espouses while showing how political deficiencies in the modern selection process erode diversity and legitimacy, and perhaps Scherer’s provocative solution. This response ultimately discusses some promising measures beyond Scherer’s recommendation that could enhance diversity and legitimacy in light of the threat that politicization poses