Legal History Commons^™

The Lack Of Dissent In Wto Dispute Settlement: Is There A “Unanimity” Problem?, Meredith Kolsky Lewis

ExpressO

This article is the first piece of scholarship to analyze in detail the fact that there has been almost no dissent in World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement reports. The article first examines the empirical data with respect to dissenting and concurring opinions at both the panel and Appellate Body levels. Fewer than five percent of panel reports and two percent of Appellate Body reports contain separate opinions of any kind. It second shows that the WTO is in fact actively discouraging dissents, and discusses why this might be the case. The article argues that dissents are valuable in general, …

Reflections On The Role Of Appellate Courts: A View From The Supreme Court, Stephen G. Breyer

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Just Say "No Fishing": The Lure Of Metaphor, Beth Thornburg

ExpressO

The phrase “fishing expedition” is widely used in popular culture and in the law. In the case of metaphorical “fishing” in the law, reliance on the metaphor can act as a substitute for rigorous analysis, disguising the factors that influence a result. When used by the court, it is uninformative. Worse, the fishing metaphor may itself shape the way the court thinks about the kind of issue or claim involved. Accusations of “fishing” also affect the language and position of the litigants. Parties arguing against pleadings or discovery use the metaphor as a rhetorical weapon, stigmatizing their opponents, instead of …

Exploring The Judicial Philosophy And Intellectual Independence Of John Marshall Harlan I: A Temporal Examination Across Three Chief Justices, George S. Yacoubian

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Dostoyevsky And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Confession, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2006), Amy D. Ronner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Limiting The Presidency To Natural Born Citizens Violates Due Process, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1343 (2006), Paul A. Clark

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Checks And Balances: Congress And The Federal Court, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

This essay was published as a chapter in Reforming the Supreme Court: Term Limits for Justices (Paul D. Carrington & Roger Cramton eds, Carolina Academic Press 2006). Its point is that Congress has long neglected its duty implicit in the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers to constrain the tendency of the Court, the academy and the legal profession to inflate the Court's status and power. The term "life tenure" is a significant source of a sense of royal status having not only the adverse cultural effects noted by Nagel, but also doleful effects on the administration and enforcement of …

Cognitive Errors, Individual Differences, And Paternalism, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Legal scholars commonly argue that the widespread presence of cognitive errors in judgment justifies legal intervention to save people from predictable mistakes. Such arguments often fail to account for individual variation in the commission of such errors even though individual variation is probably common. If predictable groups of people avoid making the errors that others commit, then law should account for such differences because those who avoid errors will not benefit from paternalistic interventions and indeed may be harmed by them. The research on individual variation suggests three parameters that might distinguish people who can avoid error: cognitive ability, experience …

Political Advocacy On The Supreme Court: The Damaging Rhetoric Of Antonin Scalia, Stephen A. Newman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Power And Mobilizable History, Richard A. Primus

Articles

One contribution that law professors can make to constitutional discourse, I suggest, is the nurturing of new mobilizable histories. A "mobilizable history," as I will use the term, is a narrative, image, or other historical source that is sufficiently well-known to the community of constitutional decisionmakers so as to be able to support a credible argument in the discourse of constitutional law. It draws upon materials that are within the collective memory of constitutional interpreters; indeed, a necessary step in nurturing a new mobilizable history is to introduce new information into that collective memory or to raise the prominence of …

Judicial Discretion To Condition, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Death, Joseph Brooker

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tribute To Judge Merhige, Orran L. Brown

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Let Us Now Praise Famous Judges: Exploring The Roles Of Judicial "Intuition" And "Activism" In American Law, Rodney A. Smolla

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Preserve, Protect, And Defend The Constitution Of The United States, Ronald J. Bacigal

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Appellate Judges Do, Rick Sims

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Adjusting The Rear-View Mirror: Rethinking The Use Of History In Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Mitchell Gordon

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

A Theory In Search Of A Court, And Itself: Judicial Minimalism At The Supreme Court Bar, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Cass Sunstein has prominently and provocatively advocated a theory of judicial minimalism. He has claimed that minimalism provides both an accurate descriptive account of how the Supreme Court decides constitutional cases and a persuasive normative theory of how the Justices should exercise their power of judicial review. In fact, he has written that the October 2003 Term demonstrates the Court's commitment to judicial minimalism.

In this Article, I demonstrate a deep tension between Professor Sunstein's aspiration that minimalism serve as an empirically testable (and thus descriptively accurate) account of the Supreme Court's work, and his ambition that minimalism provide a …

Some Thoughts On Herb Johnson's Favorite Court, R. Kent Newmyer

Faculty Articles and Papers

No abstract provided.

Book Review: Forensic Linguistics, Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

Review of John Gibbons' text "Forensic Linguistics"

A Brief Look At Broward County Lawyers’ And Judges’ Attitudes Toward Plea Bargaining As A Tool Of Courtroom Efficiency, Mohammad A. Faruqui

ExpressO

Even the most rigidly ideological prosecutors acknowledge that they need to plea out most of the less serious criminal charges to ensure justice without incurring an unmanageable backlog of cases. But what do most criminal lawyers and judges think about the plea arrangment system? Is it fair to defendants? Do lawyers use plea bargains to better serve their clients by finding the best deal, or do they use plea bargains to cut their case load for what some call "garbage cases?" This paper surveys a small sample to see how 21st century Broward County criminal lawyers feel about the plea …

Federal Judicial Selection: The First Decade, Maeva Marcus

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Balancing A Burning Cross: The Court And Virginia V. Black, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1205 (2005), Jason A. Abel

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

American Courts Are Drowning In The "Gene Pool": Excavating The Slippery Slope Mechanisms Behind Judicial Endorsement Of Dna Databases, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 115 (2005), Meghan Riley

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Stop Me Before I Get Reversed Again”: The Failure Of Illinois Appellate Courts To Protect Their Criminal Decisions From United States Supreme Court Review, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 893 (2005), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

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.