Judges Commons^™

Defining Dicta, Michael Abramowicz, Maxwell Stearns

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

In recent decades, legal scholars have devoted substantially greater attention to studying the origin and nature of stare decisis than to defining the distinction between holding and dicta. This appears counter-intuitive when one considers, first, that stare decisis applies only to holdings of announced precedents, and second, that beyond problematic and rudimentary intuitions, the legal system has failed to develop meaningful definitions of these terms. While lawyers, legal scholars, and jurists likely assume that they can identify dicta when they see it, a careful analysis that categorizes the range of judicial assertions in need of proper characterization reveals that defining …

Foreseeing Greatness? Measurable Performance Criteria And The Selection Of Supreme Court Justices, James J. Brudney

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Working Paper Series

This article contributes to an ongoing debate about the feasibility and desireability of measuring the "merit" of appellate judges--and their consequent Supreme Court potential--by using objective performance variables. Relying on the provocative and controversial "tournament criteria" proposed by Professors Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati in two recent articles, Brudney assesses the "Supreme Court potential" of Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun based on their appellate court records. He finds that Burger's appellate performance appears more promising under the Choi and Gulati criteria, but then demonstrates how little guidance these quantitative assessments actually provide when reviewing the two men's careers on the …

Family And Juvenile Law, Robert E. Shepherd Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconsider Old Taboo, Scott Dodson

Popular Media

The recent cries of judicial activism need to be scrutinized. Are decisions like Lawrence and Goodrich really activist and, if so, is that even something to be discouraged? In this op-ed, I look closely at the "activism" of these decisions and conclude that there is nothing inherently activist about them. I also conclude that, even if there is, activism is defensible in certain cases when it returns to the people the power to exercise their own individual liberties.

My First Appellate Argument: It Can Only Get Better, Jon O. Newman

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

The Illusion Of Devil's Advocacy: How The Justices Of The Supreme Court Foreshadow Their Decisions During Oral Argument, Sarah Levien Shullman

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Getting To Know Us: Judicial Outreach In Oregon, Mary J. Deits, Lora E. Keenan

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Historical Links: The Remarkable Legacy And Legal Journey Of The Honorable Julia Cooper Mack, Inez Smith Reid

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Tournament Of Virtue, Lawrence B. Solum

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

How ought we to select judges? One possibility is that each of us should campaign for the selection of judges who will transform our own values and interests into law. An alternative is to select judges for their possession of the judicial virtues - intelligence, wisdom, courage, and justice. Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati reject both these options and argue instead for a tournament of judges - the selection of judges on the basis of measurable, objective criteria, which they claim point toward merit and away from patronage and politics. Choi and Gulati have gotten something exactly right: judges should …

Appointing Federal Judges: The President, The Senate, And The Prisoner's Dilemma, David S. Law

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This paper argues that the expansion of the White House's role in judicial appointments since the late 1970s, at the expense of the Senate, has contributed to heightened levels of ideological conflict and gridlock over the appointment of federal appeals court judges, by making a cooperative equilibrium difficult to sustain. Presidents have greater electoral incentive to behave ideologically, and less incentive to cooperate with other players in the appointments process, than do senators, who are disciplined to a greater extent in their dealings with each other by the prospect of retaliation over repeat play. The possibility of divided government exacerbates …

Supermajority Rules And The Judicial Confirmation Process, Michael B. Rappaport, John O. Mcginnis

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

In this paper we assess the effect of possible supermajority rules on the now contentious Senate confirmation process for judges. We deploy a formula for evaluating supermajority rules that we have developed in other papers. First, we consider a sixty-vote rule in the Senate for the confirmation of federal judges–an explicit version of the supermajority norm that may be emerging from the filibuster. While we briefly discuss how such a rule would affect the project of maximizing the number of originalist judges, for the most part we evaluate the rule on the realist assumption that judges will pursue their own …

Judges As Rulemakers, Larry A. Alexander, Emily Sherwin

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This essay analyzes and compares different approaches to the problem of legal precedent. If judges reasoned flawlessly, the ideal approach to precedent would give prior judicial opinions only the weight they naturally carry in moral reasoning. Given that judges are not perfect reasoners, the best approach to precedent is one that treats rules established in prior decisions as authoritative for later judges. In comparison to the natural model of precedent, a rule-based model minimizes error. A rule-based model is also superior to several popular attempts at compromise, which call on judges to reason from the results of prior cases or …

Strategic Judicial Lawmaking: An Empirical Investigation Of Ideology And Publication On The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, David S. Law

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Previous studies have demonstrated that, in a number of contexts, federal appeals court judges divide along ideological lines when deciding cases upon the merits. To date, however, researchers have failed to find evidence that circuit judges take advantage of selective publication rules to further their ideological preferences - for example, by voting more ideologically in published cases that have precedential effect than in unpublished cases that lack binding effect upon future panels. This article evaluates the possibility that judges engage in strategic judicial lawmaking by voting more ideologically in published cases than in unpublished cases. To test this hypothesis, all …

Judicial Elections In West Virginia: By The People, For The People Or By The Powerful, For The Powerful - A Choice Must Be Made, Brian P. Anderson

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

'You'd Better Be Good': Congressional Threats Of Removal Against Federal Judges, Marc O. Degirolami

ExpressO

In the attached article, I argue that congressional threats of removal against federal judges are increasing in prevalence and forcefulness and that as a result the strained relationship between the judiciary and Congress – a topic of recent attention and debate – will continue to deteriorate in the coming years. I examine two bills, the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act and House of Representatives Resolution 568 (in which Congress would disavow citation in judicial decisions to foreign law), to demonstrate this thesis.

I next ask what explains the phenomenon of congressional threats of removal, deploying first Thomas Hobbes’ state-of-nature …

The Rise Of Managerial Judging In International Criminal Law, Maximo Langer

ExpressO

Abstract This article puts the procedure of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in a completely new and previously unexplored light. Rejecting the predominant view of ICTY procedure as a hybrid between the adversarial system of the U.S. and the inquisitorial system of civil law jurisdictions, this article shows that ICTY procedure is best described through a third procedural model that does not fit in either of the two traditional systems. This third procedural model is close to the managerial judging system that has been adopted in U.S. civil procedure. The article then explores some of the …

Good Faith In The Cisg: Interpretation Problems In Article 7, Benedict C. Sheehy

ExpressO

ABSTRACT: This article examines the dispute concerning the meaning of Good Faith in the CISG. Although there are good reasons for arguing a more limited interpretation or more limited application of Good Faith, there are also good reasons for a broader approach. Regardless of the correct interpretation, however, practitioners and academics need to have a sense of where the actual jurisprudence is going. This article reviews every published case on Article 7 since its inception and concludes that while there is little to suggest a strong pattern is developing, a guided pattern while incorrect doctrinally is preferable to the current …

Constitutional Law—Separation Of Powers—Restoring The Constitutional Formula To The Federal Judicial Appointment Process: Taking The Vice Out Of "Advice And Consent", Jason Eric Sharp

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Personality Of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Aubrey Immelman, Jamie Thielman

Psychology Faculty Publications

This paper presents the results of an indirect assessment of the personality of U.S. Supreme Court associate justice Clarence Thomas, from the conceptual perspective of Theodore Millon.

Information concerning Justice Thomas was collected from biographical sources, speeches, and published reports and synthesized into a personality profile using the second edition of the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria (MIDC), which yields 34 normal and maladaptive personality classifications congruent with Axis II of DSM-IV.

The personality profile yielded by the MIDC was analyzed on the basis of interpretive guidelines provided in the MIDC and Millon Index of Personality Styles manuals. Justice …

The Majoritarian Rehnquist Court?, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Judicial Dialogue For Legal Multiculturalism, Charles H. Koch Jr.

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Of Gift Horses And Great Expectations: Remands Without Vacatur In Administrative Law, Daniel B. Rodriguez

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Administrative law has been shaped over the years by fundamentally practical considerations. Displacement of agency decisions by courts was rare; yet, the omnipresent threat of substantial judicial intrusion surely affected agency decisions. While the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted nearly 60 years ago, provides a comprehensive template for federal agency decisionmaking, what is striking about the APA is how much is left out and how much is left to the discretion of both agencies in implementing regulatory decisions and to the courts in superintending agency action. Given this history, it is hardly surprising that many doctrinal techniques represent the pragmatic effort …

Supreme Court Statistical Overview, October Term 2003, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute, Liz Hollander

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

Contaminating The Verdict: The Problem Of Juror Misconduct, Bennett L. Gershman

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Stick Houses In Peshawbestown, Matthew L. M. Fletcher

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the legal and historical challenges faced by Native American tribes, particularly the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, in asserting their sovereignty and rights. It highlights the federal government's role in undermining tribal autonomy through coercive policies, such as forced sterilization and disenrollment, while also exploring the tension between tribal sovereignty and state jurisdiction. The analysis emphasizes the importance of federal recognition and the ongoing struggles for self-governance, cultural preservation, and economic stability in Native American communities.

Does Time Eclipse Crime? Stogner V. California And The Court's Determination Of The Ex Post Facto Limitations On Retroactive Justice, Ryan D. Frei

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

What's A Judge To Do? Remedying The Remedy In Institutional Reform Litigation, Susan Poser

Michigan Law Review

Democracy by Decree is the latest contribution to a scholarly literature, now nearly thirty-years old, which questions whether judges have the legitimacy and the capacity to oversee the remedial phase of institutional reform litigation. Previous contributors to this literature have come out on one side or the other of the legitimacy and capacity debate. Abram Chayes, Owen Fiss, and more recently, Malcolm Feeley and Edward Rubin, have all argued that the proper role of judges is to remedy rights violations and that judges possess the legitimate institutional authority to order structural injunctions. Lon Fuller, Donald Horowitz, William Fletcher, and Gerald …

The Death Penalty: Conceptual And Empirical Issues, Jason Borenstein

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article argues that the death penalty in the United States is plagued by significant conceptual and empirical flaws, particularly regarding its reliability and fairness. The author advocates for a moratorium on the death penalty until these issues are addressed, emphasizing the risk of executing innocent individuals and the lack of sufficient safeguards in capital proceedings. While not calling for outright abolition, the article contends that the current system is too flawed to continue without substantial reforms.

To Defer Or Not To Defer: Judicial Review Of Zoning Board Decisions In New York, Elliot Gardner

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The note examines the judicial review of zoning board decisions in New York, emphasizing the need to balance deference to local boards with ensuring fairness and transparency. It argues that excessive judicial deference can lead to arbitrary and unjust decisions, particularly in distinguishing between variances and special permits. The author advocates for clearer judicial standards, such as a higher scrutiny for special permits, and proposes reforms like specialized courts to enhance consistency and fairness in zoning decisions.

Right Wing Justice: The Conservative Campaign To Take Over The Courts, Herman Schwartz

Books

Right Wing Justice raises the alarm about the creeping conservative campaign to "pack" America's courts with judges more identified with their ideological affiliation than their skill or regard for the Constitution. The consequence is that the rule of law is taking a terrific beating from the Supreme Court. Who can forget the debacle of Election 2000? But the consequences of the campaign go far deeper than that, impinging on the daily lives of ordinary Americans who are at the receiving end of attempts to overturn or erode Supreme Court rulings on abortion, school prayer, civil rights, criminal justice, and economic …