Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Congress And The Independence Of Federal Law Enforcement, Andrew Kent
Congress And The Independence Of Federal Law Enforcement, Andrew Kent
Faculty Scholarship
Not since the Nixon presidency has the issue of the professional neutrality and independence of federal law enforcement from White House interference or misuse been such a pressing issue. This Article describes the problem, details Congress’s important role in responding to it during the 1970s, and makes specific recommendations for Congress today. As important background, this Article recounts the abuses of the Hoover era at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and the ways the Nixon White House sought to both impede and corrupt the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the FBI. It then describes what an engaged Congress looked …
Hardball Vs. Beanball: Identifying Fundamentally Antidemocratic Tactics, Jed H. Shugerman
Hardball Vs. Beanball: Identifying Fundamentally Antidemocratic Tactics, Jed H. Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
The “constitutional hardball” metaphor used by legal scholars and political scientists illuminates an important phenomenon in American politics, but it obscures a crisis in American democracy. In baseball, hardball encompasses legitimate tactics: pitching inside to brush a batter back but not injure, hard slides, hard tags. Baseball fans celebrate hardball. Many of the constitutional hardball maneuvers previously identified by scholars have been legitimate, if aggressive, constitutional political moves. But the label “hardball” has been interpreted too broadly to include illegitimate, fundamentally undemocratic tactics. I suggest a different baseball metaphor for such tactics: beanball, pitches meant to injure and knock out …
Poetry In Motion: The Federal Rules Of Evidence And Forward Progress As An Imperative, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter
Poetry In Motion: The Federal Rules Of Evidence And Forward Progress As An Imperative, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter
Faculty Scholarship
This Article dives into the long-standing debate about the propriety of altering the time-honored Federal Rules of Evidence. Noted authorities, such as the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, have eschewed any modification to the Rules, claiming that they must remain essentially fixed in their original form to maximize their utility to trial advocates and to avoid wasteful dislocation costs that accompany updates. Unlike the many scholarly works examining the merits and demerits of particular evidence rules, this Article shines a light on the lesser examined process of amending the Federal Rules of Evidence, revealing a taxonomy of evidentiary circumstances or trigger …