Judges Commons^™

Unplugged - When Do Supreme Court Justices Need To Just Sit Down And Be Quiet?, Sonja R. West

Popular Media

This article looks at Supreme Court justices providing their opinions on various legal topics prior to resigning from the bench.

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2010 Preview, Update: December 7, 2010, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

From One [Expletive] Policy To The Next: The Fcc's Regulation Of "Fleeting Expletives" And The Supreme Court's Response, Brandon J. Almas

Federal Communications Law Journal

After the broadcast of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, during which the lead singer from U2 uttered an expletive on national television, the FCC revisited its prior policy on the use of expletives on the airwaves and declared, for the first time, that "fleeting expletives" are offensive according to community standards and are therefore finable. In a lawsuit filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Fox Television Stations, Inc. along with a number of other broadcasters argued that the FCC's new policy was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Second …

Justice Souter And The Civil Rules, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

Justice Souter’s recent retirement from the Court after nearly twenty years presents a unique opportunity to comment on his legacy. No doubt others will eulogize or castigate him for his membership in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey troika, but there is much more to the man and his jurisprudence. Indeed, the danger is that Justice Souter will be pigeonholed into one opinion, an opinion that he wrote early in his Supreme Court career, to the detriment of understanding the complex justice that he was. And what it finds is a justice deeply committed to the fair treatment of the litigants …

Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent scholarship in political science and law challenges the view that judicial review in the United States poses what Alexander Bickel famously called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." Although courts do regularly invalidate state and federal action on constitutional grounds, they rarely depart substantially from the median of public opinion. When they do so depart, if public opinion does not eventually come in line with the judicial view, constitutional amendment, changes in judicial personnel, and/or changes in judicial doctrine typically bring judicial understandings closer to public opinion. But if the modesty of courts dissolves Bickel's worry, it raises a distinct one: Are …

Issue 1: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fool Me Once, Shame On Me; Fool Me Again And You're Gonna Pay For It: An Analysis Of Medicare's New Reporting Requirements For Primary Payers And The Stiff Penalties Associated With Noncompliance, Brent M. Timberlake, Monica A. Stahly

University of Richmond Law Review

This article discusses the new requirements and the issues that currently face insurers, claimants, and attorneys in cases involving Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.

The Dictionary Is Not A Fortress: Definitional Fallacies And A Corpus-Based Approach To Plain Meaning, Stephen C. Mouritsen

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unfettered Discretion: Criminal Orders Of Protection And Their Impact On Parent Defendants, David Michael Jaros

Indiana Law Journal

The last two decades have witnessed an astonishing increase in the use of the criminal justice system to police neglectful parents. Recasting traditional allegations of neglect as criminal charges of endangering the welfare of a child, prosecutors and the police have involved criminal courts in the regulation of aspects of the parent-child relationship that were once the sole province of family courts. This Article explores the legal implications of vesting judges in these cases with the unfettered discretion to issue protective orders that criminalize contact between a parent and her child.I argue that procedures for issuing protective orders that were …

Judicial Selection In Rhode Island: Assessing The Experience With Merit Selection: Response, Emily J. Sack

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Aliens On The Bench: Lessons In Identity, Race And Politics From The First "Modern" Supreme Court, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

Every time a Supreme Court vacancy is announced, the media and the legal academy snap to attention. Even the general public takes note; in contrast to most of the decisions issued by the Court, a majority of Americans are aware of and have opinions about the men and women who are nominated to sit on it. Moreover, public opinion about the nominee has a strong influence on a senator's vote for or against the candidate. If the confirmation hearing held before the Senate Judiciary Committee is largely an empty ritual, why do so many people seem so enthralled by it? …

The Impact Of Merit Selection On The Characteristics Of Rhode Island Judges, Michael J. Yelnosky

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of The United States, October Term 2010 Preview, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

Supreme Court Overviews

No abstract provided.

Taking Out The Context: A Critical Analysis Of Associated Press V. Canterbury, Kevin Gillen

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mandatory Minimalism, Erik Luna, Paul G. Cassell

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Clerks Gone Wild, Parker B. Potter, Jr.

Seattle University Law Review

This Article grows out of my delight in seeing fellow law clerks break through the paper curtain and onto the pages of the Federal Reporter, the Federal Supplement, or some other compendium of judicial opinions. While my fascination with law clerks as the subjects rather than the instruments of judicial writing is probably not universal, I have selected the opinions I discuss in this Article with an eye toward entertaining—and maybe even instructing, if only slightly—the clerkigentsia and the judiciary. So, with that audience in mind, I set off in search of law clerks who had gone wild …

The Challenges For Directors In Piloting Through State And Federal Standards In The Maelstrom Of Risk Management, Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey

Seattle University Law Review

In the 2010 Berle Center Directors’ Academy Keynote Address, Chief Justice Veasey addresses “the federal and state contexts relating to the corporate-governance focus on business risk and the expectations laid at the doorstep of directors and officers of U.S. public companies.” Specifically, Chief Justice Veasey looks “at the governance landscape through both a federal regulatory lens and a state judicial lens as it relates to risk assessment and risk management.”

Kate Chase, The "Sphere Of Women's Work," And Her Influence Upon Her Father's Dissent In Bradwell V. Illinois, Richard Aynes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

Kate Chase was said to be the most beautiful and the most intelligent woman of her age. Her father, Salmon P. Chase, is remembered today as Lincoln’s secretary of the treasury and as a chief judge of the U. S. Supreme Court. In his own time, Chase was considered one of the nation’s political giants; Abraham Lincoln described him as “one and a half times bigger than any other man” he had ever known. Carl Schurz’s summary still echoes today: “More than anyone else he looked the great man. Tall, broad-shouldered, and proudly erect, . . . he was a …

Why The Supreme Court Cares About Elites, Not The American People, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

Supreme Court Justices care more about the views of academics, journalists, and other elites than they do about public opinion. This is true of nearly all Justices and is especially true of swing Justices, who often cast the critical votes in the Court’s most visible decisions. In this Article, we will explain why we think this is so and, in so doing, challenge both the dominant political science models of judicial behavior and the significant work of Barry Friedman, Jeffrey Rosen, and others who link Supreme Court decision making to public opinion.

Remarks At Memorial Service For The Honorable Morris E. Lasker, U.S. District Court, Southern District Of New York, Nicholas A. Robinson

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Remarks At Memorial Service For The Honorable Morris E. Lasker, U.S. District Court, Southern District Of New York, Michael B. Mushlin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Making Stuff Up, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Beginning with an article in this Journal almost thirty years ago, Professor Underwood continues to research and write about legal ethics and litigation. In this Commentary, he offers a witty look at several cases where, in his opinion, the judge allowed improper arguments to the jury.

"Our Cities Institutions" And The Institution Of The Common Law, Bernadette Meyler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The audiences of early modern English drama were multiple, and they intersected with the legal system in various ways, whether through the cross-pollination of the theaters and the Inns of Court, the representations of the sovereign’s justice performed before him, or the shared evidentiary orientations of jurors and spectators. As this piece written for a symposium on “Reasoning from Literature” contends, Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure addressed to these various audiences the question of whether the King should judge in person. In doing so, it drew on extant political theories suggesting that the King refrain from exposing himself to public censure …

Finding Data And Statistics On Judges, Leslie A. Street

Library Staff Publications

No abstract provided.

The Twist Of Long Terms: Judicial Elections, Role Fidelity, And American Tort Law, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The received wisdom is that American judges rejected strict liability through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To the contrary, a majority of state courts adopted Rylands v. Fletcher and strict liability for hazardous or unnatural activities after a series of flooding tragedies in the late nineteenth century. Federal judges and appointed state judges generally ignored or rejected Rylands, while elected state judges overwhelmingly adopted Rylands or a similar strict liability rule.

In moving from fault to strict liability, these judges were essentially responding to increased public fears of industrial or man-made hazards. Elected courts were more populist: they were …

Procuring ‘Justice’?: Citizens United, Caperton, And Partisan Judicial Elections, André Douglas Pond Cummings

Law Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, two inextricably connected issues have received a great deal of attention in both United States political discourse and in the legal academic literature. One issue of intense legal debate and frustration has been that of judicial recusal, including an examination of the appropriate standards that should necessarily apply to judges that seem conflicted or biased in their role as neutral arbiter. A second issue that has spawned heated commentary and great dispute over the past decade is that of campaign finance law, including examination of the role that powerful and wealthy benefactors play in American electioneering. Both …

Improving Federal Judicial Selection, Carl Tobias

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I descriptively analyzes the volume. Part II evaluates the many insights Wittes contributes to readers' appreciation of contemporary federal judicial selection. Part III details numerous recommendations.

Something Judicious This Way Comes...The Use Of Foreshadowing As A Persuasive Device In Judicial Narrative, Michael J. Higdon

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Misplaced Trust In Mechanical Justice, Evangeline A. Zimmerman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In 1984 the Sentencing Reform Act was passed, ending fully discretionary sentencing by judges and allowing for the creation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ("FSG" or "Guidelines"). This Note proposes that the Guidelines failed not only because they ran afoul of the Sixth Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court in 2005, but also because they lacked a clear underlying purpose, had a misplaced trust in uniformity, and were born of political compromise. Moreover, the effect of the FSG was to blindly shunt discretionary decisions from judges, who are supposed to be neutral parties, to prosecutors, who are necessarily partisan. …

Issue 4: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.