Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Advice & Consent (1)
- Advocates (1)
- Appointments Clause (1)
- Canons (1)
- Capital Punishment (1)
-
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Gideon v. Wainwright (372 U.S. 335 (1963)) (1)
- Glossip v. Gross (135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015)) (1)
- Intelligence Tests (1)
- Judicial Nominations (1)
- Judicial Review (1)
- Lawyers (1)
- Legal Briefs (1)
- Mentally Disabled Persons (1)
- Nominations (1)
- Right to Counsel (1)
- Senate Confirmation (1)
- Strict Scrutiny Doctrine (1)
- Supreme court jurisprudence (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins
The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court receives a record number of amicus curiae briefs and cites to them with increasing regularity. Amicus briefs have also become influential in determining which cases the Court will hear. It thus becomes important to ask: Where do these briefs come from? The traditional tale describes amicus briefs as the product of interest-group lobbying. But that story is incomplete and outdated. Today, skilled and specialized advocates of the Supreme Court Bar strategize about what issues the Court should hear and from whom they should hear them. They then “wrangle” the necessary amici and “whisper” to coordinate the message. …
The Death Knell For The Death Penalty And The Significance Of Global Realism To Its Abolition From Glossip V. Gross To Brumfield V. Cain, Linda A. Malone
The Death Knell For The Death Penalty And The Significance Of Global Realism To Its Abolition From Glossip V. Gross To Brumfield V. Cain, Linda A. Malone
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding the death penalty, whether or not cruel, has most certainly been unusual in the annals of criminal punishment. In the short span of four years, the Court foreclosed and then reopened this form of punishment in Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia. One year later the Court would categorically exclude the punishment for the rape of an adult. Five years later the Court would again preclude the punishment, for any defendant convicted of felony-murder who did not participate or share in the homicidal act or intent. In 1986 the Court would struggle with …
Tiers Of Scrutiny In A Hierarchical Judiciary, Tara Leigh Grove
Tiers Of Scrutiny In A Hierarchical Judiciary, Tara Leigh Grove
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The United States Supreme Court (Mostly) Gives Up Its Review Role With Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Cases, Paul Marcus
The United States Supreme Court (Mostly) Gives Up Its Review Role With Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Cases, Paul Marcus
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Sherlock Holmes Canon, Anita S. Krishnakumar
The Sherlock Holmes Canon, Anita S. Krishnakumar
Faculty Publications
Many of the Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation cases infer meaning from Congress’s failure to comment in the legislative record. Colorfully referred to as the “dog that did not bark” canon, after a Sherlock Holmes story involving a watchdog that failed to bark while a racehorse was being stolen, the interpretive presumption holds as follows: if a statutory interpretation would significantly change the existing legal landscape, Congress can be expected to comment on that change in the legislative record; thus, a lack of congressional comment regarding a significant change can be taken as evidence that Congress did not intend that interpretation. …
The Senate Has No Constitutional Obligation To Consider Nominees, Jonathan Adler
The Senate Has No Constitutional Obligation To Consider Nominees, Jonathan Adler
Faculty Publications
After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Republicans announced they would refuse to consider any nomination for his seat on the Supreme Court prior to the next presidential election. In response, some have argued that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to act on a Supreme Court nomination. This argument finds no support in the relevant constitutional text, constitutional structure, or the history of judicial nominations. While there are strong policy and prudential arguments that the Senate should promptly consider any and all nominations to legislatively authorized seats on the federal bench, and on the Supreme Court in particular, …