Courts Commons^™

Book Review: We The People: The Fourteenth Amendment And The Supreme Court, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

Never one to shirk a challenge, Michael Perry has taken on the difficult task of investigating whether, as charged by a number of prominent social and legal commentators, "the modern Supreme Court, in the name of the Fourteenth Amendment [to the US Constitution], [has] usurped prerogatives and made choices that properly belong to the electorally accountable representatives of the American people," and if so, to what extent (p. 8). Perry makes no attempt to address every facet of Fourteenth Amendment doctrine, but instead focuses his discussion on some of the most controversial topics: racial segregation, affirmative action, discrimination on the …

Why The Courts, Anthony Lewis

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Payne Defensible?: The Constitutionality Of Admitting Victim-Impact Evidence At Capital Sentencing Hearings, Joshua D. Greenberg

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Court Decisions As Information Sources For Journalists: How Journalists Can Better Cover Appellate Decisions, F. Dennis Hale

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rules And Judicial Review, Emily Sherwin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Judicial review of statutes on constitutional grounds is affected by a cluster of doctrinal practices that are generally accepted, but not very well explained, by the courts and not entirely consistent with each other. Courts usually judge statutes “as applied” rather than as written; they favor “severance” of valid applications of statutes from invalid or possibly invalid applications when possible; and they interpret statutes in ways that avoid constitutional difficulty. These overlapping practices presumably are intended to preserve legislation, and hence are associated with a modest conception of the role of courts in government. Yet they are not always modest …

The Normless And Exceptionless Exception: Carl Schmitt's Theory Of Emergency Powers And The "Norm-Exception" Dichotomy, Oren Gross

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Losing Faith: America Without Judicial Review?, Erwin Chemerinsky

Michigan Law Review

In the last decade, it has become increasingly trendy to question whether the Supreme Court and constitutional judicial review really can make a difference. Gerald Rosenberg, for example, in The Hollow Hope, expressly questions whether judicial review achieves effective social change. Similarly, Michael Klarman explores whether the Supreme Court's desegregation decisions were effective, except insofar as they produced a right-wing backlash that induced action to desegregate. In Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Mark Tushnet approvingly invokes these arguments (pp. 137, 145), but he goes much further. Professor Tushnet contends that, on balance, constitutional judicial review is harmful. He …

Carl Schmitt And The Three Moments Of Democracy, Andreas Kalyvas

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Andreas Kalyvas, Jan Müller

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Carl Schmitt And His Influence On Historians, Reinhard Mehring

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Carl Schmitt: The Defective Guidance For The Critique Of Political Liberalism, Emanuel Richter

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Carl Schmitt's Antiliberalism: Its Theoretical And Historical Sources And Its Philosophical And Political Meaning, Carlo Galli

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Exile Of The Nomos: For A Critical Profile Of Carl Schmitt, Giacomo Marramao

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Schmittian Positions On Law And Politics?: Cls And Derrida, John P. Mccormick

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Schmitt, History, And Habermas: Comments On Mehring And Rasch, Joseph W. Bendersky

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

"The Mis-Characterization Of The Negro": A Race Critique Of The Prior Conviction Impeachment Rule, Montrè D. Carodine

Indiana Law Journal

The election of Barack Obama as the nation's first Black President was a watershed moment with respect to race relations in the United States. Obama's election removed what to many seemed a nearly insurmountable racial barrier. Yet as he transitions into his historic role and his family becomes the first Black occupants of the White House, scores of Blacks are housed in jails and prisons across the country. The mass incarceration of Blacks, among other serious issues, demonstrates that race still matters in the United States. As then-presidential candidate Obama acknowledged in the speech that many viewed to be pivotal …

Litigation In The United States And Mexico: A Comparative Overview, Robert M. Kossick, Jr.

University of Miami Inter-American Law Review

No abstract provided.

Changing Relationships Among European Constitutional Courts, Stephen Breyer

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comment: Remarks On Michelman And Breyer, Shlomo Avineri

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Should State Corporate Law Define Successor Liability - The Demise Of Cercla's Federal Common Law, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

During the 1980s and early 1990s, a series of decisions broadly interpreting the liability provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA) appeared destined to transform corporate law practice. CERCIA does not directly address successor liability, but the statute's complex and contradictory legislative history arguably implies that Congress wanted federal courts to apply broad liability principles to achieve the statute's fundamental remedial goal of making polluters and their successors pay for cleaning up hazardous substances.

Notably, a number of courts rejected state corporate law principles that usually limit the liability of successor corporations and instead …

Boerne And Buddhism: Reconsidering Religious Freedom And Religious Pluralism After Boerne V. Flores, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 689 (2000), Eric Pruitt

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chief Justice John Marshall And The Course Of American Constitutional History, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 743 (2000), Samuel R. Olken

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Editing Marshall, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 823 (2000), Charles F. Hobson

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall, Mcculloch V. Maryland, And The Southern States' Rights Tradition, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 875 (2000), R. Kent Newmyer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recovering The World Of The Marshall Court, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 781 (2000), G. Edward White

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall In Spencer Roane's Virginia: The Southern Constitutional Opposition To The Marshall Court, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1131 (2000), F. Thornton Miller

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Property Rights In John Marshall's Virginia: The Case Of Crenshaw And Crenshaw V. Slate River Company, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1175 (2000), J. Gordon Hylton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall And Indian Nations In The Beginning And Now, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1183 (2000), Milner S. Ball

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Section 5 Mystique, Morrison, And The Future Of Federal Antidiscrimination Law, Margaret H. Lemos, Samuel Estreicher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rights, Rules And The Structure Of Constitutional Adjudication: A Response To Professor Fallon, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional doctrine is typically rule-dependent. A viable constitutional challenge typically hinges upon the existence of a discriminatory, overbroad, improperly motivated, or otherwise invalid rule, to which the claimant has some nexus. In a prior article, Prof. Adler proposed one model of constitutional adjudication that tries to make sense of rule-dependence. He argued that reviewing courts are not vindicating the personal rights of claimants, but rather are repealing or amending invalid rules. IN a Commentary in this issue, Professor Fallon now puts forward a different model of constitutional adjudication, equally consistent with rule-dependence. Fallon proposes that a reviewing court should overturn …