Judges Commons^™

Evaluating Judges And Judicial Institutions: Reorienting The Perspective, Mitu Gulati, David E. Klein, David F. Levi

Faculty Scholarship

Empirical scholarship on judges, judging, and judicial institutions, a staple in political science, is becoming increasingly popular in law schools. We propose that this scholarship can be improved and enhanced by greater collaboration between empirical scholars, legal theorists, and the primary subjects of the research, the judges. We recently hosted a workshop that attempted to move away from the conventional mode of involving judges and theorists in empirical research, where they serve as commentators on empirical studies that they often see as reductionist and mis-focused. Instead, we had the judges and theorists set the discussion agenda for the empiricists by …

Limiting Article Iii Standing To "Accidental" Plaintiffs: Lessons From Environmental And Animal Law Cases, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

Georgia Law Review

According to the Supreme Court, Article III's extension
of "judicialPower" to "Cases" and "Controversies"limits
standing to plaintiffs who can demonstrate an
individualized "injury in fact" that was caused by the
defendant and that is judicially redressable. Article III's
text and history, however, do not mention "injury,"
"causation,"or "redressability."
Furthermore, these standards are malleable and have
been applied to achieve ideological goals, especially in
cases involving environmental and animal-welfare laws.
Most notably, the Court has recognized an "injury in fact"
to one's aesthetic enjoyment of nature, but determining
such an injury is arbitrarybecause "aesthetics"is a matter
of personal taste. Judges have …

Current Issues In Judicial Disqualifications Symposium 2011, Michael W. Martin

Faculty Scholarship

Public confidence in the judiciary's integrity is critical, and

In Memoriam: Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., John G. Douglass

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Professor Robert E. Shepherd, Jr.: Tending To His Flock To Improve Its Lot, John P. Cunningham

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Professor Robert E. Shepherd, Jr. September 22, 1937 - December 11, 2008, Hon. Walter S. Felton Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2009 Preview, Update: October 26, 2009, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2009 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute, Amanda M. Boote

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

Letter To Clerk Of Court Re: Ronald Jackson, Roger J. Miner '56

Correspondence

No abstract provided.

Letter To Clerk Of Court Re: Harold Harris, Roger J. Miner '56

Correspondence

No abstract provided.

The Swinging Pendulum Of Sentencing Reform: Political Actors Regulating District Court Discretion, Lydia Brashear Tiede

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Issue 4: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unmasking Judicial Extremism, Carl Tobias

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Religious Arguments And The United States Supreme Court: A Review Of Amicus Curiae Briefs Filed By Religious Organizations, Andrew S. Mansfield

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the role of religious organizations in shaping legal arguments before the Supreme Court, particularly in cases involving morally charged issues. It highlights the tension between the Court's avoidance of explicit religious discussions in its decisions and the significant influence of religious amicus briefs. The analysis reveals two primary approaches: limiting religion's role in government and advocating for religion's active participation in public life to define a common good. The Court's silence on religious matters contrasts with the substantial religious arguments presented in briefs, which often emphasize ethical and legal perspectives rooted in religious beliefs.

Neglected Justices: Discounting For History, G. Edward White

Vanderbilt Law Review

The category of "neglected Justices" presupposes meaningful baselines for evaluating judicial reputations. A Justice cannot be deemed "neglected" except against the backdrop of some purported consensus about that Justice's reputation and the reputations of other Justices. Moreover, when the category of "neglected Justices" encompasses the performance of Justices who served in different time periods, it also presupposes that evaluative baselines for Justices can retain their integrity in the face of historical change and historical contingency.

This Article argues that when one discounts for history in the process of evaluating judicial reputations, the effects of history are sufficiently powerful to throw …

Extraordinary Rendition: A Wrong Without A Right, Robert Johnson

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Isaiah And His Young Disciples: Justice Brandeis And His Law Clerks, Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

It cannot be said that Louis Dembitz Brandeis has suffered from a lack of scholarly attention. Brandeis is considered to be one of the most influential Justices in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, and scores of books and law-review articles have been written about Brandeis the lawyer, the political insider, the Zionist, and the Justice. A case can be made, however, that history has not fully recognized the important and lasting contribution that Brandeis made to the development of the institutional rules and norms surrounding the Supreme Court law clerk, an oversight that this essay seeks to rectify.

The Role Of Courts Vis-À-Vis Legislatures In The Same-Sex Marriage Context: Sexual Orientation As A Suspect Classification, Ingrid M. Lofgren

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Case Interpretation, Shawn J. Bayern

Scholarly Publications

This Article develops an approach to constructing the meaning of prior court cases that is more helpful than formalistic, conventional distinctions between concepts like "holdings" and "dicta." Instead of trying to classify judicial announcements into fixed categories, courts should engage in a broader interpretive inquiry when confronting prior cases. Determining what a judicial opinion stands for requires determining the intent that motivated the opinion, as carefully understood in light of the factual and argumentative context that gave rise to it.

Under this view of precedent, binding common law arises in large part from principles explicated after considering facts. Viewing precedent …

Peering Into The Judicial Magic Eight Ball: Arbitrary Decisions In The Area Of Juror Removal, 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 813 (2009), Kimberly Wise

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Four Opinions By Chief Judge Markey On Limiting Patent Enforcement, 8 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. (Special Issue) 34 (2009), Joseph R. Re

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Many commentators have characterized Judge Markey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as being biased in favor of patent holders. These four opinions exemplify Judge Markey’s support of a strong patent system, a system that must include strong defenses against parties that have either wrongly obtained or misused patent rights.

Leaving The Thicket At Last?, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Laura Jane Durfee

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Across the spectrum of ideas debated within the law of democracy, the view is nearly unanimous that the Justices must lead the way toward a better democracy. And yet, as we argue in this Essay, the Court’s handling of the problems since its initial intervention in Baker v. Carr has been nothing short of a mess. Debates in this area offer modern instances of a Court that cares little about doctrinal consistency and judicial craftsmanship, of Justices that care less about compromise and common ground and more about expressing their deeply held views about politics, democracy, and the law. In …

The Living Constitution Of Ancient Athens: A Comparative Perspective On The Originalism Debate, 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 463 (2009), Mark J. Sundahl

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Decades After Beech: Confusion Over The Admissibility Of Expert Opinions In Public Records, 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 925 (2009), Thomas J. Mccarthy, John M. Power

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Redefining Disposable Income In Chapter 13 Plans: Moving Forward Into A "New Era In The History Of Bankruptcy Law", 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1107 (2009), Lauren Sylvester

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

David Doe V. Goliath, Inc.: Judicial Ferment In 2009 For Business Plaintiffs Seeking The Identities Of Anonymous Online Speakers, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2009), Clay Calvert, Kayla Gutierrez, Karla D. Kennedy, Kara Carnley Murrhee

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silencing Tory Bowen: The Legal Implications Of Word Bans In Rape Trials, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (2009), Randah Atassi

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Is Lying Illegal? When Should It Be? A Critical Analysis Of The Federal False Statements Act, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 111 (2009), Steven R. Morrison

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nonconsensual + Nonbinding = Nonsensical? Reconsidering Court-Connected Arbitration Programs, Amy J. Schmitz

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

Policymakers have adopted programs mandating parties to submit their disputes to court-connected arbitration hoping to garner efficiency benefits commonly associated with contractual Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) arbitration. Mandatory nonbinding arbitration, however, is ill-equipped for this task because it lacks the consensual core and finality of FAA arbitration. Instead, it often adds an inefficient layer to the litigation process and may harm those least able to protect themselves from coerced settlements or burdens of protracted litigation.

How Should We Study District Judge Decision-Making?, Pauline T. Kim, Margo Schlanger, Christina L. Boyd, Andrew D. Martin

Articles

Understanding judicial decision-making requires attention to the specific institutional settings in which judges operate. The choices available to judges are determined not only by the law and facts of the case but also by procedural context. The incentives and constraints shaping judges’ decision-making will vary depending on, for example, whether they have a life-appointment or are elected; whether they hear cases alone or with colleagues; and whether and under what circumstances their decisions might be altered, overturned, or undone by the actions of others. The basic insight that the institutional context matters has led to increasingly sophisticated studies of how …