Jurisprudence Commons^™

Impartiality In Judicial Ethics: A Jurisprudential Analysis, W. Bradley Wendel

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Judicial Reasoning About Pregnancy And Choice, Jocelyn Downie, Chris Kaposy

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Women in Canada are at risk of abortion becoming increasingly difficult to access. In its landmark 1988 ruling, R. v. Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the prohibition of abortion in section 251 of the Criminal Code on the grounds that it violated a section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees, among other things, "security of the person". However, all of the justices who ruled that section 25 unconstitutional nonetheless claimed that protecting the fetus is a valid objective of federal legislation, leaving open the possibility that a different and carefully crafted law against abortion …

Locating Authority In Law, And Avoiding The Authoritarianism Of 'Textualism', Patrick Mckinley Brennan

Working Paper Series

Much modern jurisprudence attempts to move the locus of authority away from people with authority in order to locate it instead, for example, in rules or texts. This article argues that authority, wherever it exists, is a quality of the actions of persons. The article mounts this argument by showing how Justice Scalia's textualism is the legal analogue of a largely discredited form of "Christian positivism," one that leads to a form of authoritarianism. The article goes on to argue that authorianism can be avoided only by individuals' and their communities' becoming authoritative, including in the making and enforcement of …

Law & Politics: The Case Against Judicial Review Of Direct Democracy, Corey A. Johanningmeier

Indiana Law Journal

This Note argues against strong judicial review of direct democracy. Judicial review has been the dominant answer in legal scholarship for the perceived danger of majoritarian tyranny in any democratic system. But Progressive movements throughout American history, as well as a growing number of respected law professors, have questioned the assumption that courts or even legislatures are better protectors of discrete and insular minorities than the rights-respecting populace. Although the vast majority of legal scholarship still displays a crippling cynicism about popular competence, this view cannot continue to block progressives from participating in initiative campaigns. Exclusive resort to elitist procedural …

Umpires At Bat: On Integration And Legitimation, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

During his confirmation hearings. Chief Justice Roberts captured the public's imagination when he offered an interpretation of the role that judges play in our society when interpreting the Constitution. Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around, he said. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see an umpire.

In this inquiry, I identify some tensions between the …

Civil Case Appellate Standards Of Review (And A Very Few Unavoidable Related Propositions Of Law), Updated And Revised (Current Through August 3, 2007), Alan G. Gless

State of Nebraska Judicial Branch

Why would a district court judge write about or revise an appellate court judge’s work on appellate standards of review and related propositions of law in civil cases? Well, two reasons – a change in legal mind set and fifteen years’ worth of changes in appellate practice. First, and foremost, when Judge Irwin collected in a single work his 1992 Standards of Review and Propositions of Law, Civil, he was the first in recent Nebraska legal history to do so. Those of us who have used his work owe him our thanks; his contribution was invaluable to both the bench …

The Wait Is Over: Chevron As The Stealth Vermont Yankee Ii, Paul R. Verkuil

Articles

The article argues that the Chevron doctrine has effectively served as a means to moderate the hard-look review of agency rulemaking, rendering the anticipated Vermont Yankee II case unnecessary. It posits that Chevron's deference to agency interpretations of statutes has softened the impact of State Farm's stringent arbitrary-and-capricious review standard, aligning more closely with the judicial restraint envisioned by Vermont Yankee.

Why Originalism Won’T Die - Common Mistakes In Competing Theories Of Judicial Interpretation, Tara Smith

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

In the debate over proper judicial interpretation of the law, the doctrine of Originalism has been subjected to numerous seemingly fatal criticisms. Despite the exposure of flaws that would normally bury a theory, however, Originalism continues to attract tremendous support, seeming to many to be the most sensible theory on offer. This Article examines its resilient appeal (with a particular focus on Scalia’s Textualism). By surveying and identifying the fundamental weaknesses of three of the leading alternatives to Originalism (Popular Will theory, Dworkin’s value theory, and Judicial Minimalism), the Article demonstrates that the heart of Originalism’s appeal rests in its …

Interrogation Of Detainees: Extending A Hand Or A Boot?, Amos N. Guiora

ExpressO

The so called “war on terror” provides the Bush administration with a unique opportunity to both establish clear guidelines for the interrogation of detainees and to make a forceful statement about American values. How the government chooses to act can promote either an ethical commitment to the norms of civil society, or an attitude analogous to Toby Keith’s “American Way,” where Keith sings that “you’ll be sorry that you messed with the USofA, ‘Cuz we’ll put a boot in your ass, It’s the American Way.”

No aspect of the “war on terrorism” more clearly addresses this balance than coercive interrogation. …

Jutstice Kennedy And The Environment: Property, States' Rights, And The Search For Nexus, Michael Blumm

ExpressO

Justice Anthony Kennedy, now clearly the pivot of the Roberts Court, is the Court’s crucial voice in environmental and natural resources law cases. Kennedy’s central role was never more evident than in the two most celebrated environmental and natural resources law cases of 2006: Kelo v. New London and Rapanos v. U.S., since he supplied the critical vote in both: upholding local use of the condemnation power for economic development under certain circumstances, and affirming federal regulatory authority over wetlands which have a significant nexus to navigable waters. In each case Kennedy’s sole concurrence was outcome determinative.

Justice Kennedy has …

The Trial Judge's Equitable Discretion Following Ebay V. Mercexchange, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

None available.

Nebraska Probation Revocation: A Primer (2007 Revision), Alan G. Gless

State of Nebraska Judicial Branch

The law of probation revocation developed rapidly over the eighteen years preceding this article’s 1989 appearance. While its development has slowed substantially since then, it continues to evolve. The overall field of Nebraska probation revocation remains essentially unchanged from the way it was in 1989 when this article first appeared. The case law has neither burgeoned dramatically nor altered the scenery in major ways, although, it has added a few refinements. But important procedural and substantive wrinkles have appeared through 2003 statutory amendments to the steps probation officers must take in responding to probationers’ violations of the conditions of their …

Process Theory, Majoritarianism, And The Original Understanding, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Radicals in Robes, Cass Sunstein posits that there are four primary approaches to constitutional interpretation: perfectionism, majoritarianism, minimalism, and fundamentalism.' The purpose of his eloquent and compelling book is twofold: Sunstein argues for minimalism, an approach that he contends makes most sense for America today; and with even greater force, Sunstein argues against fundamentalism, which he finds "wrong, dangerous, radical, and occasionally hypocritical."' The "Radicals in Robes" who are the targets of Sunstein's book are judges who embrace fundamentalism, which, in his view, embodies "the views of the extreme wing of [the] Republican Party."'

In Securing Constitutional Democracy: The …

In Re Simone D., Erin E. Martin

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Anxiety Of The Law Student At The Socratic Impasse - An Essay On Reductionism In Legal Education, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Most Dangerous Justice Rides Into The Sunset, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this essay, our third and last in a series, we employ our previously developed techniques to measure the power of the Justices in the Rehnquist Court over its full 11 year run. Once again, Justice Kennedy rises to the top of our rankings, as he had done earlier. Our methods identify Justices Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg as being notable either for their influence or lack thereof. In addition, we rejoin the debate on the connection between being the median justice and being the most powerful one. We question whether even the most sophisticated methods of finding the median justice …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Herding Bullfrogs Towards A More Balanced Wheelbarrow: An Illustrative Recommendation For Federal Sentencing Post-Booker, Brian R. Gallini, Emily Q. Shults

ExpressO

The Article argues in favor of shifting the balance in federal sentencing toward a more indeterminate system. By exploring the post-Booker legal landscape at both the federal and state levels, the Article asserts that the judiciary's continued reliance on the “advisory" Guidelines has practically changed federal sentencing procedures very little in form or function. Accordingly, the Article proffers that, rather than insisting upon the Guidelines' immutability, federal sentencing would do well to reflect upon its own history, and the evolution of its state counterparts.

Radicals In Robes: A Review, Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

This essay reviews and critiques Cass Sunstein’s new book about conservative activists in the federal judiciary. After a discussion of Sunstein’s (somewhat misleading) rhetorical nomenclature, this essay argues that Sunstein’s proposed “minimalist” methodology in constitutional jurisprudence is beneficial, but not for the reasons Sunstein suggests. Sunstein alternatively justifies judicial restraint or incrementalism on epistemological self-doubt (cautiousness being an outgrowth of uncertainty) and his fear that accomplishments by Progressives in the last century will be undone by conservative judges in the present. Constitutional incrementalism is more convincingly justified on classical economic grounds. While affirming Sunstein’s overall thesis, this essay offers an …

When Should Judges Appoint Experts?: A Law And Economics Perspective, Jonathan T. Tomlin, David Cooper

ExpressO

The Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals placed federal judges in the role of “gatekeepers” empowered to evaluate the reliability of often complex expert testimony. Many judges, commentators, and legal scholars have argued that court-appointed experts can assist judges in appropriately carrying out their gatekeeping role. However, previous literature has not evaluated the role of court-appointed experts in a rigorous framework that considers the complex interaction of the incentives of expert witnesses, the impact of expert witnesses on the decision-making of the fact finder, and the knowledge of the judge. In this article, we provide such a …

A Defense Of Structural Injunctive Remedies In South African Law, Danielle E. Hirsch

ExpressO

This Article argues that the use of structural injunction remedies by South African courts is appropriate, and, in light of demonstrated government inaction, often necessary in order to give meaning to the protection of socio-economic rights, which is mandated by their Constitution. The Article draws upon numerous United States judicial decisions where structural injunctions have been successfully implemented to address systemic institutional inaction and violations of the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution. In numerous instances, the South African government has not acted to effectively give meaning to the socio-economic rights which were broadly declared …

Searches & The Misunderstood History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause: Part One, Fabio Arcila

ExpressO

This article, the first of a two-part series, argues that during the Framers’ era many if not most judges believed they could issue search warrants without independently assessing the adequacy of probable cause, and that this view persisted even after the Fourth Amendment became effective. This argument challenges the leading originalist account of the Fourth Amendment, which Professor Thomas Davies published in the Michigan Law Review in 1999.

The focus in this first article is upon an analysis of the common law and how it reflected the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions. Learned treatises in particular, and to a lesser extent a …

Jumping On The Bandwagon: How Canadian Lawyers Can & Should Get Involved In The Emerging Trend To Implement Therapeutic Jurisprudence Practices In Canadian Courts, Brooke Bloom

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

The Roberts Court: Year 1, Lori A. Ringhand

ExpressO

This paper is an empirical examination of the recently ended 2005 Supreme Court term. The paper, in addition to reviewing the work of the Court as a whole, also examines the jurisprudence of new justices Roberts and Alito. In doing so, it proposes the intriguing possibility that these two justices may share a jurisprudential approach different from the Court's more established conservatives. If correct, this raises numerous and interesting possibilities for the future of conservativism on the Supreme Court.

Dworkin In The Desert Of The Real, David G. Carlson

Articles

The article critically examines Ronald Dworkin's jurisprudence, particularly his theory of right answers, and defends it against critiques that his approach to law and language creates an unbridgeable gap between theory and practice. Dworkin's central argument is that law has an essence that judges must discover through reflective equilibrium, emphasizing the incommensurability between the judge's act and the symbolic order of law. While critics argue that this approach leads to nihilism, Dworkin counters by asserting that conventionalists are contradictory and that justice, as a decision, necessarily transgresses the domain of law.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

The “Csi Effect”: Better Jurors Through Television And Science?, Michael D. Mann

ExpressO

This Comment discusses how television shows such as CSI and Law & Order create heightened juror expectations. This will be published in the Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal's 2005-2006 issue.

Mixed Messages: The Supreme Court’S Conflicting Decisions On Juries In Death Penalty Cases, Ken Miller, David Niven

ExpressO

The right to a jury determination of a capital defendant's fate has expanded recently. The era of judges making factual determinations then determining whether to apply a death sentence or judges having the power to overrule a jury's life sentence to impose death is over. The expanded right to access a jury and have it hold determinative power over a defendant's life has not, however, been accompanied by commensurate attention to the instructions that guide those jurors through the applicable law toward their verdict. Nor have adequate procedures been designed to produce a truly representative jury panel. In brief, the …

Review Essay: Radicals In Robes , Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

This essay reviews and critiques Cass Sunstein’s new book entitled Radicals in Robes. After a discussion of Sunstein’s (somewhat misleading) rhetorical nomenclature, this essay argues that Sunstein’s proposed “minimalist” methodology in constitutional jurisprudence is beneficial, but not for the reasons Sunstein suggests. Sunstein alternatively justifies judicial restraint or incrementalism on epistemological self-doubt (cautiousness being an outgrowth of uncertainty) and his fear that accomplishments by Progressives in the last century will be undone by conservative judges in the present. Constitutional incrementalism is more convincingly justified on classical economic grounds. While affirming Sunstein’s overall thesis, this essay offers an alternative rationale for …

Review Essay: Using All Available Information, Max Huffman

ExpressO

This is a review essay entitled “Using All Available Information,” in which I review and comment on Justice Stephen Breyer’s new book, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution, published in September 2005. Justice Breyer’s book, adapted from the Tanner Lectures given in 2005 at Harvard Law School, serves partly as a response to Justice Scalia’s 1997 volume A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. I review Justice Breyer’s book in part by comparison to and contrast with Justice Scalia’s. I propose that much about Justice Breyer’s interpretive philosophy, which centers on determining the “purposes” of texts and interpreting …