Law Commons^™

An Intellectual History Of Judicial Activism, Roger Craig Green

Roger Craig Green

This Article seeks to reclaim the _term_ judicial activism by exploring the _concept_ of judicial activism that underlies it. From newsrooms to confirmation hearings, judicial activism is a uniquely popular epithet condemning judicial misconduct. One goal of this Article is to dispel misperceptions about what judicial activism actually is. Popular examples include understandings of activism as (i) any exercise of judicial review, (ii) any result with which the observer disagrees, (iii) any decision purporting to enhance individual rights, or (iv) any opinion that fails to defer to actions of elected officials.

A second project is to explain in positive terms …

An Intellectual History Of Judicial Activism, Craig Green

Roger Craig Green

This Article seeks to transform how readers view judicial activism. From newsrooms to confirmation hearings, judicial activism is a uniquely potent and popular epithet condemning judicial misconduct. By contrast, most legal scholars either eschew activism-talk as too vague, or they adopt unsound definitions of the term as (i) any exercise of judicial review or (ii) any unfavorable result. These trends have segregated normative debates over judicial activity, with solidly unfortunate results.

This Article reclaims the term judicial activism by exploring the concept of judicial activism that underlies it. One goal of this Article is to dispel widespread misperceptions about judicial …

The Problematic Nature Of Contractionist Statutory Interpretations, Brian G. Slocum

Brian G. Slocum

The main thesis of Daniel B. Rodriguez and Barry R. Weingast's recent article, The Paradox of Expansionist Statutory Interpretations, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 1207 (2007), is important: the voting decisions of legislators can be influenced by the activist statutory interpretations of courts. Specifically, the authors demonstrate that the broad interpretations of progressive legislation made by courts in the 1960s and 1970s undermined the legislative deals struck between ardent supporters of progressive legislation and the moderate legislators necessary for passage of the statutes. Although these expansionist interpretations broadened the reach of important progressive legislation, they had the effect of discouraging …

Macniven V. Westmoreland And Tax Advice Using “Purposive Textualism” To Deal With Tax Shelters And Promote Legitimate Tax Advice, Scott A. Schumacher

Articles

The last few years have seen a flurry of activity aimed at the tax shelter industry. Beginning with the “covered opinion” rules of Treasury Circular 230 in 2005, the government has adopted several changes to the standards applicable to tax advice, all in an effort stop abusive tax shelters. Most recently, both Congress (in 2007) and Treasury (in 2008) have revised the standards applicable to tax advice to require that a position have a “more likely than not” chance of succeeding on the merits, or the position must be disclosed to the IRS. While the government’s desire for reform is …

Take-Ings, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The word property had many meanings in 1789, as it does today, and a critical aspect of the ongoing debate about the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause has centered on how the word should be read in the context of the Clause. Property has been read by Professor Thomas Merrill to refer to "ownership" interests, by Richard Epstein in terms of a broad Blackstonian conception of the individual control of the possession, use, and disposition of resources, by Benjamin Barros as reflective of constructions through individual expectations and state law, and by the author as physical control of …

Textualism And Jurisdiction, Peter J. Smith

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

Recent legislation has reinvigorated the scholarly debate over the proper relationship between Congress and the federal courts in matters of federal-court jurisdiction. The traditional view of jurisdiction-stripping is that Congress has virtually plenary power to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Others have argued that there are substantial limits on Congress's authority to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over certain matters. A similar debate has raged over the obligation of federal courts to exercise jurisdiction that Congress ostensibly has conferred. Since the debate over Congress's role in crafting a jurisdictional regime last flared in full force, textualism has …

When Should Original Meanings Matter?, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Constitutional theory lacks an account of when each of the familiar sources of authority-text, original meaning, precedent, and so on-should be given weight. The dominant tendency is to regard all sources as potentially applicable in every case. In contrast, this Article proposes that each source of authority is pertinent in some categories of cases but not in others, much as a physical tool is appropriate for some but not all kinds of household tasks. The Article then applies this approach to identify the categories of cases in which original meaning is, or is not, a valid factor in constitutional decisionmaking.