Law Commons^™

Claiming Neutrality And Confessing Subjectivity In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

Supreme Court confirmation hearings provide a rare opportunity for the American people to hear what (would-be) justices think about the nature of judging and the role of the Supreme Court. In recent years, nominees have been quick to talk about judging in terms of neutrality and objectivity, most famously with Chief Justice Roberts’ invocation of the “neutral umpire,” and they have emphasized their reliance on legal texts and sources as if those sources can provide answers in difficult cases. Many of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, however, do not have objectively correct answers that can be deduced from …

Foreword, Antonin Scalia

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

May It Please The Court: Questions About Policy At Oral Argument, Cynthia K. Conlon, Julie M. Karaba

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

This Article examines the questions that Supreme Court Justices ask during oral argument. The authors content-coded questions asked in fifty-three cases argued during the October 2009, 2010, and 2011 terms—a total of 5,115 questions. They found that the Justices vary significantly in the extent to which they ask about different aspects of a case, including threshold issues, precedent, facts, external actors, legal argument, and policy. They also found that the Justices were more likely to ask policy-oriented questions in education cases than in constitutional cases that did not arise in a school setting. The authors included a case study of …

Milking The New Sacred Cow: The Supreme Court Limits The Peremptory Challenge On Racial Grounds In Powers V. Ohio And Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co., Bradley R. Kirk

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Newman, J., Dissenting: Another Vision Of The Federal Circuit, Blake R. Hartz

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

The Praise Of Silly: Critical Legal Studies And The Roberts Court, James F. Lucarello

Touro Law Review

This Comment demonstrates that the Supreme Court is lying to you in its opinions. Why is it lying? The short answer to this question is quite simple: It is being silly.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being silly. In fact, some praise silliness, as a heightened and healthy understanding of the indeterminate world that incorporates our reality. Silliness, how ever, is only praise-worthy when it is understood and utilized purposefully. The silliness of most of the Justices on the Supreme Court, on the other hand, is a product of self-delusion and fundamentalism, which makes their silliness not silly at …

The October 2008 Term: First Amendment And Then Some, Burt Neuborne

Touro Law Review

Liberals must acknowledge a dirty little secret about American constitutional law; a secret that the Warren Court made apparent, though it had existed from the day John Marshall asserted the power of judicial review in a Constitution that says nothing about it. The secret is that there is no serious theory explaining or justifying what courts actually do when they strike down a statute as unconstitutional.

The Warren years were enormously important in moving the country forward. I do not know what we would have done without the wisdom and courage of the Court. But when you start looking for …

A Passion For Justice, Charles A. Reich

Touro Law Review

What makes a good judge or justice? The public has a need to know. But simplistic labels, such as "activist," "liberal" and "conservative," are both meaningless and misleading. Perhaps aformer law clerk can offer a different perspective.

I served with David J. Vann as law clerk to Justice Hugo L.Black during the momentous 1953 Term of the Supreme Court. This was the year when Brown v. Board of Education was decided. It was also the year when Chief Justice Vinson died and was replaced by the Governor of California, Earl Warren. And it was also a year in which the …

A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald

Pepperdine Law Review

A response to the article "Plessy v. Ferguson and the Anti-Canon," by Akhil Amar, published in the November 2011 issue of the "Pepperdine Law Review," is presented. Topics include an examination of Justice Henry Billings Brown's decision in the case, the constitutionality of segregating U.S. citizens by race, and the impact of public opinion on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Plessy V. Ferguson And The Anti-Canon, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which dealt with the constitutionality of racial segregation in the U.S. Topics include the application of precedent in controversial U.S. Supreme Court cases, when the U.S. Constitution can overrule a court decision, and dissenting judicial opinions.

The Worst Supreme Court Case Ever? Identifying, Assessing, And Exploring Low Moments Of The High Court, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Terrace V. Thompson And The Legacy Of Manifest Destiny, Jean Stefancic

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Blackmun (And Scalia) At The Bat: The Court's Separation-Of-Powers Strike Out In Freytag, Tuan Samahon

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Hiding Behind The Cloak Of Invisibility: The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions, Ira Robbins

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Per curiam--literally translated from Latin to "by the court"-is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "[a]n opinion handed down by an appellate court without identifying the individual judge who wrote the opinion." Accordingly the author of a per curiam opinion is meant to be institutional rather than individual, attributable to the court as an entity rather than to a single judge The United States Supreme Court issues a significant number of per curiam dispositions each Term. In the first six years of Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure, almost nine percent of the Court full opinions were per curiams. The prevalence …

Contract Law Walks The Plank: Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute, Charles L. Knapp

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Bush V. Gore: The Worst (Or At Least Second-To-The-Worst) Supreme Court Decision Ever, Mark S. Brodin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ashcroft V. Iqbal: Contempt For Rules, Statutes, The Constitution, And Elemental Fairness, Steve Subrin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Nigro V. United States: The Most Disingenuous Supreme Court Opinion, Ever, A. Christopher Bryant

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Naim V. Naim, Richard Delgado

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Hustler V. Falwell: Worst Case In The History Of The World, Maybe The Universe, John M. Kang

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lynch And The Lunacy Of Secularized Religion, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ricci V. Destefano: Diluting Disparate Impact And Redefining Disparate Treatment, Ann C. Mcginley

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute: The Titanic Of Worst Decisions, Linda S. Mullenix

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lassiter V. Department Of Social Services: Why Is It Such A Lousy Case?, Brooke D. Coleman

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Globe Refining Co. V. Landa Cotton Oil Co. And The Dark Side Of Reputation, Larry T. Garvin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Tending To Potted Plants: The Professional Identity Vacuum In Garcetti V. Ceballos, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Setting Us Up For Disaster: The Supreme Court's Decision In Terry V. Ohio, Thomas B. Mcaffee

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Circumstance And Strategy: Jointly Authored Supreme Court Opinions, Laura Krugman Ray

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.