Judges Commons^™

Mixed Signals And Subtle Cues: Jury Independence And Judicial Appointment Of The Jury Foreperson, Andrew Horwitz

Law Faculty Scholarship

Imagine that you are falsely accused of a serious crime and that you are now on trial before a judge and jury. You knew before the trial began that the judge had a reputation as a “law and order” judge, as a judge who was not at all receptive to the arguments of most criminal defense attorneys. You have been watching as the judge and your attorney have been engaged in what appears to be an adversarial battle throughout the trial, but you have taken some comfort in the fact that it will be the jury, not the judge, who …

Judicial Safety: A Judge's Perspective, Wayne R. Andersen Judge, Sameh I. Mobarek, John M. Richardson

Public Interest Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Kruse V. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (Decided September 10, 2004), Jennifer Katehos

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Selection: Ideology Versus Character, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Part I of Judicial Selection: Ideology versus Character sets the stage for an argument that character and not political ideology should be the primary factor in the selection of judges. Political ideology has played an important role in judicial selection, from John Adams's entrenchment of federalists as judges after the election of 1800 to the Roosevelt's selection of progressives, liberals, and New Dealers, the contemporary era, from the failed nominations of Fortas, Haynsworth, Carswell to the defeat of Robert Bork, the narrow confirmation of Clarence Thomas. But until recently, political ideology has played its role behind the scenes--mostly off the …

Congress's Power To Enforce Fourteenth Amendment Rights: Lessons From Federal Remedies The Framers Enacted , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Robert Kaczorowski argues for an expansive originalist interpretation of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment. Before the Civil War Congress actually exercised, and the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld plenary Congressional power to enforce the constitutional rights of slaveholders. After the Civil War, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment copied the antebellum statutes and exercised plenary power to enforce the constitutional rights of all American citizens when they enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then incorporated the Act into the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thereby exercised the plenary power the Rehnquist Court claims the …

Congressional Threats Of Removal Against Federal Judges, Marc O. Degirolami

Faculty Publications

The federal judicial branch has lately become the object of increasing scrutiny and distrust by its legislative counterpart. Congressional suspicion is often directed toward judicial discretion in criminal sentencing and, more generally, the degree to which judges are perceived to be beholden to a particular ideological point of view or personal bias. This distrust has bred a potent strain of political opportunism that Congress has manifested in several recent bills. One of these, the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act, all but eliminated judicial discretion in sentencing and tacitly threatens judges' continued employment. Though the Supreme Court's recent decision in …

The Internationalism Of Justice Harry Blackmun, Margaret E. Mcguinness

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Throughout the symposium we have heard a host of adjectives to describe Justice Harry Blackmun and his jurisprudence, among them "willful," "liberal," "conservative," and "humble." Added to this list is what Professor Ruger calls "the ultimate compound taxonomy" for Justice Blackmun, a "'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Republican Rotarian Harvard Man from the Suburbs.'" One adjective that is conspicuously missing is "internationalist," a term that describes an important, though less discussed, dimension of Justice Blackmun and his jurisprudence. Internationalism is, in part, reflected in Justice Blackmun's "preference change" or shift from "relatively conservative to relatively liberal." At the same time, internationalism …

A Commander's Power, A Civilian's Reason: Justice Jackson's Korematsu Dissent, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

Robert Houghwout Jackson was a justice of the United States Supreme Court during the years of World War II. This article considers his great but potentially perplexing December 1944 dissent in Korematsu v. United States, in which he refused to join the Court majority that proclaimed the constitutionality of military orders excluding Japanese Americans from the West Coast of the United States during the War years. This article considers Justice Jackson's Korematsu dissent in full. It was and is, contrary to some of the criticisms it has received over the past 60 years, a coherent position. Jackson's dissent is also …

Empirically Testing Dworkin's Chain Novel Theory: Studying The Path Of Precedent, Stefanie A. Lindquist, Frank B. Cross

Scholarship@WashULaw

In this article, Professors Lindquist and Cross empirically study the effect of precedent on judicial decision-making. The framework for their analysis is Ronald Dworkin’s “chain novel” metaphor, an influential theory of the role of precedent whose validity has not previously been empirically tested. The chain novel metaphor suggests that the judicial use of precedent can be likened to a group of authors writing a novel seriatim, in which the accumulation of chapters increasingly constrains the choices and freedom of subsequent writers. Precedent is one of the most important areas of legal research, but currently there is no dominant working theory, …

In Defense Of Filibustering Judicial Nominations, Catherine Fisk, Erwin Chemerinsky

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Selection: Ideology Versus Character, Lawrence B. Solum

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Should Ideology Matter In Selecting Federal Judges?: Ground Rules For The Debate, Dawn E. Johnsen

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Earl Warren's Twenty-Two Years In Law Enforcement Affected His Work As Chief Justice, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Before becoming governor of California, Earl Warren had spent his entire legal career, twenty-two years, in law enforcement. Professor Kamisar maintains that this experience significantly influenced Warren's work as a Supreme Court justice and gave him a unique perspective into police interrogation and other police practices. This article discusses some of Warren's experiences in law enforcement and searches for evidence of that experience in Warren's opinions. For example, when Warren was head of the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, he and his deputies not only relied on confessions in many homicide cases but also themselves interrogated homicide suspects. The seeds …

Identifying The Linguistic Boundaries Of Sex: Court Language Choice In Decisions Regarding The Availability Of Sex And Procreation, Amy Zimmerman Hodges

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Bork Was The Beginning: Constitutional Moralism And The Politics Of Judicial Selection, Gary L. Mcdowell

Law Faculty Publications

On October 23, 1987, the United States Senate committed what many considered then-and what many still consider today-to be an unforgivable political and constitutional sin. Wielding its power to advise and consent on nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, the upper house voted 58-42 not to confirm Judge Robert H. Bork. The vote, which was the largest margin of defeat in history for a nominee to the Supreme Court, concluded one of the most tumultuous political battles in the history of the republic, a battle that would transform the process of judicial selection for years to come.

The Futility Of Appeal: Disciplinary Insights Into The "Affirmance Effect" On The United States Courts Of Appeals, Chris Wright Guthrie, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In contrast to the Supreme Court, which typically reverses the cases it hears, the United States Courts of Appeals almost always affirm the cases that they hear. We set out to explore this affirmance effect on the U.S. Courts of Appeal by using insights drawn from law and economics (i.e., selection theory), political science (i.e., attitudinal theory and new institutionalism), and cognitive psychology (i.e., heuristics and biases, including the status quo and omission biases).

Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington should not have been surprising. The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The doctrine of Ohio v. Roberts, treating the clause as a general proscription against the admission of hearsay-except hearsay that fits within a "firmly rooted" exception or is otherwise deemed reliable-had so little to do with the constitutional text, or with the history or principle behind it, that eventually it was bound to be discarded. And the appeal of a testimonial approach to the clause seemed sufficiently strong to yield high hopes that ultimately the …

Originalism, Stare Decisis And The Promotion Of Judicial Restraint, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

If we consider constitutional law as a practice, it is clear that both originalism and precedent play an important role. Neither one is going to vanquish the other, at least not any time soon. We can engage in academic debate about originalism versus stare decisis, as if they were rival modes of interpretation that could operate to the exclusion of the other. But the question of practical importance is one of degree and emphasis: in cases where these two sources of authority arguably point in different directions, which one should have a greater claim to our allegiance?

Originalism – interpreting …

Results Of A Judicial Survey On The Maryland Department Of Juvenile Services, Gloria Danziger, Barbara A. Babb

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Appellate Court Appointments In The Second Bush Administration, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Prof. Tobias discusses the renominations by President George W. Bush of twelve candidates for the United States courts of appeals, all previously opposed by Democratic senators during the President's initial term. Likely reasons and predicted consequences for these renominations are offered.

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

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Selection And Democratic Theory: Demand, Supply, And Life Tenure, Judith Resnik

Cardozo Law Review

How ought a democracy select its judges? Critics in Canada, England, and Wales invoke the democratic values of accountability and transparency to call for a diminution in prime ministerial control over judicial appointments. In the United States, Article III of the Constitution's text directs that the President nominate - with the advice and consent of the Senate - life-tenured federal judges. Bitter conflicts about particular nominees have produced many proposals for changes of that system. And in those states that rely on various forms of judicial election, concerns focus on funding and campaigning. In short, both globally and locally, democracies …

Mr. Justice Posner? Unpacking The Statistics, Stephen J. Choi, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Should Ideology Matter In Selecting Federal Judges? Ground Rules For The Debate, Dawn E. Johnsen

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A recurring constitutional controversy of great practical and political importance concerns the criteria Presidents and Senators should use in selecting federal judges. Particularly contentious is the relevance of what sometimes is described as a prospective judge's ideology, or alternatively, judicial philosophy and views on substantive questions of law. This essay seeks to promote principled and productive discussion by proposing five ground rules to govern debate by all participants regarding appropriate judicial selection criteria. Because the continued controversy does not simply reflect principled disagreement on the merits, progress may be encouraged by focusing on deficiencies in current public discourse, including discouraging …

Canons Of Construction And The Elusive Quest For Neutral Reasoning, James J. Brudney, Corey Ditslear

Vanderbilt Law Review

Federal statutes, like the lawmaking enterprise itself, are seldom models of efficiency. Whether through inevitable laxity or conscious choice, Congress when legislating leaves a fair number of gaps in the meaning of its complex regulatory schemes. In filling those gaps with case-specific interpretive responses, federal courts perform an important policymaking function.

Such policymaking has lately generated increased concerns about the politicization of the judiciary. Scholars using social science techniques have contributed to the image of courts as policymakers, by establishing that judges' political party affiliation and ideological orientation are at times significant predictors of voting behavior. Presidents and senators have …

The (Non)Uniqueness Of Environmental Law, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

In everyday discourse, the label "environmental law" signifies a distinct and unique area of the law. The uniqueness of environmental law stems most obviously from the subject matter of environmental legislation and regulation. But does environmental law also differ from other areas of law with respect to how judges ought to approach deciding cases? Should judges act differently somehow when they are deciding an environmental law case as opposed to, for example, a labor law or banking law case? At least one influential scholar - Richard Lazarus of the Georgetown University Law Center - has argued that the distinctive features …

Aliens In Our Midst Post-9/11: Legislating Outsider-Ness Within The Borders, Sylvia R. Lazos, Raquel E. Aldana

Scholarly Works

Three recent books written by Professors Bill Ong Hing, Kevin R. Johnson, and Victor C. Romero provide skillfully crafted roadmaps with which to understand the key emerging issues that will shape immigration law well into the next decade: the relationship of immigration control to national security. This Review captures the insights provided by these three authors to examine the restrictive laws and policies aimed at noncitizens in the name of national security as highlighted by the current efforts to federalize driver’s licenses. As this Review explains, these three books map the current antagonistic attitudes towards noncitizens post 9/11, and serve …

Judging The Tournament, Jay S. Bybee

Scholarly Works

The United States Constitution provides that the President has the power to appoint federal judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution does not specify the criteria that the President should use in selecting judicial nominees or that the Senate should employ in reviewing them. In recent years, the process of nominating and confirming candidates for the federal bench, and especially the Supreme Court, has become increasingly political and contentious. Professors Choi and Gulati criticize the apparently growing role ideology plays in choosing and evaluating judicial nominees and propose a bold alternative. Their “Tournament of Judges” purportedly …

The Judgment Of The Boss On Bossing The Judges: Bruce Springsteen, Judicial Independence, And The Rule Of Law, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.