Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (5)
- Elections (3)
- Campaign finance (2)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2)
- Congress (2)
-
- Constitution (2)
- Discrimination (2)
- Electoral processes (2)
- Judicial activism (2)
- Judicial review (2)
- Minorities (2)
- Roberts Court (2)
- Voting (2)
- Voting Rights Act (2)
- African Americans (1)
- Antitrust (1)
- Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (1)
- Buckley v. Valeo (1)
- Bush v. Schiavo (1)
- Cities (1)
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (1)
- Congressional findings (1)
- Constitutionality (1)
- Corporate personhood (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1)
- Florida (1)
- Florida Supreme Court (1)
- Free Exercise Clause (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law and Politics
Election Law's Lochnerian Turn, Ellen D. Katz
Election Law's Lochnerian Turn, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
This panel has been asked to consider whether "the Constitution [is] responsible for electoral dysfunction."' My answer is no. The electoral process undeniably falls well short of our aspirations, but it strikes me that we should look to the Supreme Court for an accounting before blaming the Constitution for the deeply unsatisfactory condition in which we find ourselves.
Hobby Lobby And The Pathology Of Citizens United, Ellen D. Katz
Hobby Lobby And The Pathology Of Citizens United, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Four years ago, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that for-profit corporations possess a First Amendment right to make independent campaign expenditures. In so doing, the United States Supreme Court invited speculation that such corporations might possess other First Amendment rights as well. The petitioners in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius are now arguing that for-profit corporations are among the intended beneficiaries of the Free Exercise Clause and, along with the respondents in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, that they also qualify as “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Neither suggestion follows inexorably from Citizens United, …
Pangloss Responds, Daniel A. Crane
Pangloss Responds, Daniel A. Crane
Articles
I am afraid that William Shieber and I are speaking past each other. I agree wholeheartedly with his assertion that anyone who believes that political appointees do not exert a considerable influence over the antitrust agencies is naïve. However, Technocracy and Antitrust does not advance the Panglossian view that the antitrust agencies are apolitical, if by that we mean that robotic machines devoid of human perspective or ideological commitment churn out scientifically predetermined antitrust results.
Reviving The Right To Vote, Ellen D. Katz
Reviving The Right To Vote, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Losers in partisan districting battles have long challenged the resulting districting plans under seemingly unrelated legal doctrines. They have filed lawsuits alleging malapportionment, racial gerrymandering, and racial vote dilution, and they periodically prevail. Many election law scholars worry about these lawsuits, claiming that they needlessly "racialize" fundamentally political disputes, distort important legal doctrines designed for other purposes, and provide an inadequate remedy for a fundamentally distinct electoral problem. I am not convinced. This Article argues that the application of distinct doctrines to invalidate or diminish what are indisputably partisan gerrymanders is not necessarily problematic, and that the practice may well …
Schiavo And Klein (Symposium), Evan H. Caminker
Schiavo And Klein (Symposium), Evan H. Caminker
Articles
When teaching federal courts, I sometimes find that students are slow to care about legal issues that initially seem picayune, hyper-technical, and unrelated to real-world concerns. It takes hard work to engage students in discussion of United States v. Klein,1 notwithstanding its apparent articulation of a foundational separation of powers principle that Congress may not dictate a "rule of decision" governing a case in federal court. A Civil War-era decision about the distribution of war spoils, one the Supreme Court has hardly ever cited since and then only to distinguish it, in cases involving takings and spotted owls? Yawn.
Trying To Make Peace With Bush V. Gore (Symposium: Bush V. Gore Issue 2001), Richard D. Friedman
Trying To Make Peace With Bush V. Gore (Symposium: Bush V. Gore Issue 2001), Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, shutting down the recounts of Florida's vote in the 2000 presidential election and effectively awarding the election to George W. Bush, has struck many observers, including myself, as outrageous.' Decisions of the Supreme Court should be more than mere reflections of ideological or partisan preference thinly camouflaged behind legalistic language. It would therefore be pleasant to be able to believe that they are more than that. Accordingly, Judge Richard Posner's analysis,2 in which he defends the result reached by the Court-though not the path by which it got there-is particularly welcome. Though …
The Distrust Of Politics, Terrance Sandalow
The Distrust Of Politics, Terrance Sandalow
Articles
In this Article, Dean Sandalow considers the justifications advanced by those who favor the removal of certain political issues from the political process by extending the reach of judicial review. He begins by examining the distrust of politics in a different context, discussing the proposals made by the Progressives for reforming municipal government, as a vehicle to expose the assumptions underlying the current debate. His comparison of the two historical settings reveals many similarities between the Progressives' reform proposals and the contemporary justiflcations.[or the displacement of politics with constitutional law. Dean Sandalow concludes that the distrust of politics rests not …
The Russian Reinsurance Case, Edwin D. Dickinson
The Russian Reinsurance Case, Edwin D. Dickinson
Articles
Professor Dickinson's second commentary on Russian Reinsurance Company v. Stoddard and Bankers Trust Company: "The facts in the Russian Reinsurance Company case were without precedent. The Reinsurance Company had been incorporated in Russia in 1899 under a special statute constituting its charter and by-laws.... In 1917 the revolutionary Soviet Government was established in Russia and seven of the eight persons constituting the company's board of directors was driven into exile. In 1918 Soviet decrees nationalized the company, confiscated its property, and apparently terminated its corporate existence. Nevertheless, the exiled directors held meetings in Paris and continued to direct the …