Law Commons^™

Dworkin Versus Hart Revisited: The Challenge Of Non-Lexical Determination, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

A fundamental task for legal philosophy is to explain what makes it the case that the law has the content that it does. Anti-positivists say that moral norms play an ineliminable role in the determination of legal content, while positivists say that they play no role, or only a contingent one. Increasingly, scholars report finding the debate stale. This article hopes to freshen it by, ironically, revisiting what might be thought its opening round: Dworkin’s challenge to Hartian positivism leveled in The Model of Rules I. It argues that the underappreciated significance of Dworkin’s distinction between rules and principles is …

Gephi Output Files, Folder 3, Part 2: Co-Citation Network Data Files, Joseph S. Miller

Faculty Datasets

This data subset created and collected by Joseph Miller and digitally preserved here is in support of his forthcoming article "A Judge Never Writes More Freely: A Separate-Opinions Citation-Network Approach to Assessing Judicial Ideology". From the article's abstract:

"This Article is the first to apply a novel empirical method—citation network analysis—to particular appellate jurists’ separate judicial opinions (e.g., concurrences, dissents) in an effort to provide a more detailed picture of a judge’s ideological preferences. It focuses on the separate opinions of Justices Scalia and Thomas through the end of October Term 2019: they served for a similar number …

Underlying Citation Data, Folder 4, Part 1: Census Of Scalia Cites, Joseph S. Miller

Faculty Datasets

This data subset created and collected by Joseph Miller and digitally preserved here is in support of his forthcoming article "A Judge Never Writes More Freely: A Separate-Opinions Citation-Network Approach to Assessing Judicial Ideology". From the article's abstract:

"This Article is the first to apply a novel empirical method—citation network analysis—to particular appellate jurists’ separate judicial opinions (e.g., concurrences, dissents) in an effort to provide a more detailed picture of a judge’s ideological preferences. It focuses on the separate opinions of Justices Scalia and Thomas through the end of October Term 2019: they served for a similar number …

Underlying Citation Data, Folder 4, Part 2: Census Of Thomas Cites, Joseph S. Miller

Faculty Datasets

This data subset created and collected by Joseph Miller and digitally preserved here is in support of his forthcoming article "A Judge Never Writes More Freely: A Separate-Opinions Citation-Network Approach to Assessing Judicial Ideology". From the article's abstract:

"This Article is the first to apply a novel empirical method—citation network analysis—to particular appellate jurists’ separate judicial opinions (e.g., concurrences, dissents) in an effort to provide a more detailed picture of a judge’s ideological preferences. It focuses on the separate opinions of Justices Scalia and Thomas through the end of October Term 2019: they served for a similar number …

Gephi Output Files, Folder 3, Part 1: Citation Network Data Files, Joseph S. Miller

Faculty Datasets

This data subset created and collected by Joseph Miller and digitally preserved here is in support of his forthcoming article "A Judge Never Writes More Freely: A Separate-Opinions Citation-Network Approach to Assessing Judicial Ideology". From the article's abstract:

"This Article is the first to apply a novel empirical method—citation network analysis—to particular appellate jurists’ separate judicial opinions (e.g., concurrences, dissents) in an effort to provide a more detailed picture of a judge’s ideological preferences. It focuses on the separate opinions of Justices Scalia and Thomas through the end of October Term 2019: they served for a similar number …

Keeping Our Distinctions Straight: A Response To “Originalism: Standard And Procedure”, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

For half a century, moral philosophers have distinguished between a “standard” that makes acts right and a “decision procedure” by which agents can determine whether any given contemplated act is right, which is to say whether it satisfies the standard. In “Originalism: Standard and Procedure,” Stephen Sachs argues that the same distinction applies to the constitutional domain and that clear grasp of the difference strengthens the case for originalism because theorists who emphasize the infirmities of originalism as a decision procedure frequently but mistakenly infer that those flaws also cast doubt on originalism as a standard. This invited response agrees …

How Practices Make Principles, And How Principles Make Rules, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

The most fundamental question in general jurisprudence concerns what makes it the case that the law has the content that it does. This article offers a novel answer. According to the theory it christens “principled positivism,” legal practices ground legal principles, and legal principles determine legal rules. This two-level account of the determination of legal content differs from Hart’s celebrated theory in two essential respects: in relaxing Hart’s requirement that fundamental legal notions depend for their existence on judicial consensus; and in assigning weighted contributory legal norms—“principles”—an essential role in the determination of legal rights, duties, powers, and permissions. Drawing …

Gephi Force Directed Map Files, Folder 1, Part 1: Scalia Maps, Joseph S. Miller

Faculty Datasets

This data subset created and collected by Joseph Miller and digitally preserved here is in support of his forthcoming article "A Judge Never Writes More Freely: A Separate-Opinions Citation-Network Approach to Assessing Judicial Ideology". From the article's abstract:

"This Article is the first to apply a novel empirical method—citation network analysis—to particular appellate jurists’ separate judicial opinions (e.g., concurrences, dissents) in an effort to provide a more detailed picture of a judge’s ideological preferences. It focuses on the separate opinions of Justices Scalia and Thomas through the end of October Term 2019: they served for a similar number …

Reconsidering The Nomos In Today’S Media Environment, Kimberlianne Podlas

Touro Law Review

Today’s media landscape is wholly unlike that which existed when Cover first discussed narrative and the nomos; specifically, the status of television as both a cultural messenger and object of scholarly study has changed significantly. Accordingly, this article contemplates narrative in the contemporary media environment, specifically, television as an essential source of narratives. To enhance understandings of the roles television narratives play and which narratives play a role, this article employs an empirical perspective. Surveying Media Theory, it outlines research on television effects, including when and why television’s representations of law can impact audience attitudes, behaviors, perceptions, knowledge, and judgements. …

‘Nothing About Us Without Us’: Toward A Liberatory Heterodox Halakha, Laynie Soloman, Russell G. Pearce

Touro Law Review

The role and function of “halakha” (Jewish law) in Jewish communal life is a divisive issue: while Orthodox Jews tend to embrace Jewish law, non-Orthodox Jews (here deemed “Heterodox”) generally reject Jewish law and halakhic discourse. We will explore the way in which Robert Cover’s work offers an antidote to categorical Heterodox distaste for halakha specifically, and law more broadly, providing a pathway into an articulation of halakha that may speak to Heterodox Jews specifically: one that is driven by creative “jurisgenerative” potential, that is informed by a paideic pluralism, and that is fundamentally democratic in its commitment to being …

Gephi Force Directed Map Files, Folder 1, Part 2: Thomas Maps, Joseph S. Miller

Faculty Datasets

This data subset created and collected by Joseph Miller and digitally preserved here is in support of his forthcoming article "A Judge Never Writes More Freely: A Separate-Opinions Citation-Network Approach to Assessing Judicial Ideology". From the article's abstract:

"This Article is the first to apply a novel empirical method—citation network analysis—to particular appellate jurists’ separate judicial opinions (e.g., concurrences, dissents) in an effort to provide a more detailed picture of a judge’s ideological preferences. It focuses on the separate opinions of Justices Scalia and Thomas through the end of October Term 2019: they served for a similar number …