Judges Commons^™

Interpretation And Construction In Altering Rules, Gregory Klass

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay is a response to Ian Ayres's, "Regulating Opt-Out: An Economic Theory of Altering Rules," 121 Yale L.J. 2032 (2012). Ayres identifies an important question: How does the law decide when parties have opted-out of a contractual default? Unfortunately, his article tells only half of the story about such altering rules. Ayres cares about rules designed to instruct parties on how to get the terms that they want. By focusing on such rules he ignores altering rules designed instead to interpret the nonlegal meaning of the parties' acts or agreement. This limited vision is characteristic of economic approaches to …

Perspective On Judicial Merit Retention In Florida, Scott G. Hawkins

Florida Law Review

This November, voters will decide whether to retain in office three justices of the Florida Supreme Court and fifteen judges of the district courts of appeal. This Essay explains the merit retention process and puts that process in historical context. It analyzes the challenges voters face in making decisions about whether to retain appellate court judges and highlights The Florida Bar’s role in educating voters about merit retention. The Florida constitution entrusts the important decision whether to retain appellate court judges, including supreme court justices, to the voters, and in order to make that decision, voters must be informed about …

Triangulating Judicial Responsiveness: Automated Content Analysis, Judicial Opinions, And The Methodology Of Legal Scholarship, Chad M. Oldfather, Joseph P. Bockhorst, Brian P. Dimmer

Florida Law Review

The increasing availability of digital versions of court documents, coupled with increases in the power and sophistication of computational methods of textual analysis, promises to enable both the creation of new avenues of scholarly inquiry and the refinement of old ones. This Article advances that project in three respects. First, it examines the potential for automated content analysis to mitigate one of the methodological problems that afflicts both content analysis and traditional legal scholarship—their acceptance on faith of the proposition that judicial opinions accurately report information about the cases they resolve and courts‘ decisional processes. Because automated methods can quickly …

Judicial Creativity And Constraint Of Legal Rules: Dueling Cannons Of International Law, Vitalius Tumonis

University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review

According to the traditional theory of judicial decision-making, legal rules constrain judicial creativity because they entail an objectively correct legal answer. Therefore, even if judges want to engage in judicial legislation they are nonetheless constrained by legal rules. This article argues that this understanding is flawed. First, the selection effect ensures that most cases that reach international courts revolve around uncertain legal rules. Second, various cannons of construction will usually allow judges to ascertain several equally plausible legal rules; judges are likely to select those rules which favor their preferred outcome of the case; and their preferred outcome will be …

The Supremacy Clause As Structural Safeguard Of Federalism: State Judges And International Law In The Post-Erie Era, Sam F. Halabi

Faculty Publications

Against a backdrop of state constitutional and legislative initiatives aimed at limiting judicial use of international law, this Article argues that state judges have, by and large, interpreted treaties and customary international law so as to narrow their effect on state law-making prerogatives. Where state judges have used international law more liberally, they have done so to give effect to state executive and legislative objectives. Not only does this thesis suggest that the trend among state legislatures to limit state judges' use of international law is self-defeating, it also gives substance to a relatively unexplored structural safeguard of federalism: state …

A Capsule Biography Of Joseph T. Sneed, Iii, Rollins S. Emerson

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Three Giants, Nancy Bellhouse May

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Cardozo At 100, Andrew L. Kaufman

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Gazing Into The Future: The 100-Year Legacy Of Justice William J. Brennan, Stephen J. Wermiel

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

The Legacy Of Louis D. Brandeis, Melvin I. Urofsky

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Step Aside, Mr. Senator: A Request For Members Of The Senate Judiciary Committee To Give Up Their Mics, Paul E. Vaglicia

Indiana Law Journal

In 1995, a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School dubbed the Supreme Court confirmation hearings “vapid and hollow” and added that they, as implemented, “serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government.” Ironically, this same law professor, Elena Kagan, later endured the confirmation hearings as a nominee and currently sits as the 112th Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. While she may be one of the few to ever reach a seat on the High Court, she is not alone in her assessment of the Supreme Court’s lackluster …

Newman, J., Dissenting: Another Vision Of The Federal Circuit, Blake R. Hartz

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Angry Judges, Terry A. Maroney

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Judges get angry. Law, however, is of two minds as to whether they should; more importantly, it is of two minds as to whether judges’ anger should influence their behavior and decision making. On the one hand, anger is the quintessentially judicial emotion. It involves appraisal of wrongdoing, attribution of blame, and assignment of punishment — precisely what we ask of judges. On the other, anger is associated with aggression, impulsivity, and irrationality. Aristotle, through his concept of virtue, proposed reconciling this conflict by asking whether a person is angry at the right people, for the right reasons, and in …

Comparativist-Structural Approaches To Interpretation Of The Post-Obamacare Spending Power, Michelle Biddulph, Dwight G. Newman

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has significant implications for the federal spending power, a topic that has received limited scholarly attention. The article argues that understanding this aspect of the ACA ruling is crucial for comprehending its impact on future federal programs and legislative approaches. By examining the spending power frameworks in Canada and Australia, the article highlights how different federal systems balance central authority with regional autonomy, offering valuable lessons for the U.S. legal framework.

Elected Judges And Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Ethan J. Leib

Faculty Publications

This Article considers whether differences in methods of judicial selection should influence how judges approach statutory interpretation. Courts and scholars have not given this question much sustained attention, but most would probably embrace the “unified model,” according to which appointed judges (such as federal judges) and elected judges (such as many state judges) are supposed to approach statutory text in identical ways. There is much to be said for the unified model—and we offer the first systematic defense of it. But the Article also attempts to make the best case for the more controversial but also plausible contrary view: that …

Stare Decisis And The Rule Of Law: A Layered Approach, Jeremy Waldron

Michigan Law Review

Stare decisis remains a controversial feature of the legal systems that recognize it. Some jurists argue that the doctrine is at odds with the rule of law; others argue that there are good rule-of-law arguments in favor of stare decisis. This Article considers one possible good rule-of-law argument. It suggests that we should approach stare decisis in a layered way, looking at what the rule of law requires of the various judges involved in the development of a precedent. One rule-of-law principle, the principle of constancy, counsels against lightly overturning such precedents as there are. But that is not in …

Evaluating Federally Appointed Judges In Canada: Analyzing The Controversy, Troy Riddell, Lori Hausegger, Matthew Hennigar

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This commentary describes our experiences in trying to undertake a judicial performance evaluation of federally appointed judges in Canada. Some respondents were enthusiastic about the project, but others were strongly opposed to it and worried about the effects that our survey would have on judicial independence. After describing the feedback that we received and the fallout from our project, we examine the relationship between judicial performance evaluation and judicial independence. We argue that a well-conceived judicial performance evaluation does not violate judicial independence. We then explore the resistance to judicial performance evaluation in Canada, using a comparative lens. The explanation …

Angry Judges, Terry A. Maroney

Vanderbilt Law Review

Judges get angry. Law, however, is of two minds as to whether they should; more importantly, it is of two minds as to whether judges' anger should influence their behavior and decisionmaking. On the one hand, anger is the quintessentially judicial emotion. It involves appraisal of wrongdoing, attribution of blame, and assignment of punishment-precisely what we ask of judges. On the other, anger is associated with aggression, impulsivity, and irrationality. Aristotle, through his concept of virtue, proposed reconciling this conflict by asking whether a person is angry at the right people, for the right reasons, and in the right way. …

The Praise Of Silly: Critical Legal Studies And The Roberts Court, James F. Lucarello

Touro Law Review

This Comment demonstrates that the Supreme Court is lying to you in its opinions. Why is it lying? The short answer to this question is quite simple: It is being silly.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being silly. In fact, some praise silliness, as a heightened and healthy understanding of the indeterminate world that incorporates our reality. Silliness, how ever, is only praise-worthy when it is understood and utilized purposefully. The silliness of most of the Justices on the Supreme Court, on the other hand, is a product of self-delusion and fundamentalism, which makes their silliness not silly at …

Employment Discrimination Decisions From The October 2008 Term, Drew S. Days Iii

Touro Law Review

Several employment discrimination decisions were handed down this Term. They were Ricci v.DeStefano (Title VII); Gross v.FBL Financial Services, Inc. (Age Discrimination in Employment Act); AT & T Corp. v. Hulteen (Pregnancy Discrimination Act); and 14 Penn Plaza L.L. C. v. Pyett, which concerned the impact of arbitration agreements upon the reach of federal employment discrimination laws.

The October 2008 Term: First Amendment And Then Some, Burt Neuborne

Touro Law Review

Liberals must acknowledge a dirty little secret about American constitutional law; a secret that the Warren Court made apparent, though it had existed from the day John Marshall asserted the power of judicial review in a Constitution that says nothing about it. The secret is that there is no serious theory explaining or justifying what courts actually do when they strike down a statute as unconstitutional.

The Warren years were enormously important in moving the country forward. I do not know what we would have done without the wisdom and courage of the Court. But when you start looking for …

A Passion For Justice, Charles A. Reich

Touro Law Review

What makes a good judge or justice? The public has a need to know. But simplistic labels, such as "activist," "liberal" and "conservative," are both meaningless and misleading. Perhaps aformer law clerk can offer a different perspective.

I served with David J. Vann as law clerk to Justice Hugo L.Black during the momentous 1953 Term of the Supreme Court. This was the year when Brown v. Board of Education was decided. It was also the year when Chief Justice Vinson died and was replaced by the Governor of California, Earl Warren. And it was also a year in which the …

Mr. Justice Brandeis And The Art Of Judicial Dissent, Melvin I. Urofsky

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Determining Notoriety In Supreme Court Decisions , G. Edward White

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Explaining Korematsu: A Response To Dean Chemerinsky , Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Redeeming Erie: A Response To Suzanna Sherry , Donald Earl Childress Iii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Wrong, Out Of Step, And Pernicious: Erie As The Worst Decision Of All Time, Suzanna Sherry

Pepperdine Law Review

This essay was written for “Supreme Mistakes: Exploring the Most Maligned Decisions in Supreme Court History.” A symposium on the worst Supreme Court decision of all time risks becoming an exercise best described by Claude Rains’s memorable line in Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.” Two things saved this symposium from that fate. First, each of the usual suspects was appointed defense counsel, which made things more interesting. Second, a new face found its way into the line-up: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. My goal in this essay is to explain why Erie is in fact guiltier than all of the …

Putting Buck V. Bell In Scientific And Historical Context: A Response To Victoria Nourse , Edward J. Larson

Pepperdine Law Review

In this article written for a law-review symposium in response to a presentation on the infamous 1927 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Buck v. Bell, Edward J. Larson argues that, at the time that the case was decided, eugenics was on the incline, not the decline. In the 1920s, the American scientific and medical community broadly backed eugenic remedies for various forms of mental illness and retardation. Legislatures, lawyers, and jurists took their cue from this scientific and medical consensus. Absent any question that the statute at issue in Buck v. Bell was validly passed by the Virginia legislature or …

Buck V. Bell: A Constitutional Tragedy From A Lost World, Victoria Nourse

Pepperdine Law Review

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, which dealt with the forced sterilization of people deemed unfit, such as intellectually disabled or mentally retarded individuals. Topics include the enforceability of unconstitutional judicial decisions, eugenic sterilization, and the application of substantive due process.