Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Section 8: The Rehnquist Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 3: Confirmation Politics, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 2: The O'Connor Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

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 …

Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

University Of Richmond Law Review Index Volume Xxxix 2004-2005

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Judicial Nominations Wars, William P. Marshall

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

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.

Judicial Confirmation Wars: Ideology And The Battle For The Federal Courts, Sheldon Goldman

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Observations On The Status And Impact Of The Judicial Confirmation Process, Edith H. Jones

University of Richmond 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.

The Supreme Court Report 2004-05: The End Of The Rehnquist Era, Julie M. Cheslik

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Crawford Surprises: Mostly Unpleasant, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Crawford v. Washington should not have been surprising. The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The doctrine of Ohio v. Roberts, treating the clause as a general proscription against the admission of hearsay-except hearsay that fits within a "firmly rooted" exception or is otherwise deemed reliable-had so little to do with the constitutional text, or with the history or principle behind it, that eventually it was bound to be discarded. And the appeal of a testimonial approach to the clause seemed sufficiently strong to yield high hopes that ultimately the …

Earl Warren: Law Enforcement Leads To Defendants' Rights, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Before becoming governor of California, Earl Warren spent 22 years in law enforcement: five as a deputy district attorney (1920- 25); thirteen as head of the Alameda County district attorney's office (1925-38); and four as state attorney general (1939-42). My thesis is that Warren's many years in law enforcement significantly affected his work as Chief Justice of the United States.

How Earl Warren's Twenty-Two Years In Law Enforcement Affected His Work As Chief Justice, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Before becoming governor of California, Earl Warren had spent his entire legal career, twenty-two years, in law enforcement. Professor Kamisar maintains that this experience significantly influenced Warren's work as a Supreme Court justice and gave him a unique perspective into police interrogation and other police practices. This article discusses some of Warren's experiences in law enforcement and searches for evidence of that experience in Warren's opinions. For example, when Warren was head of the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, he and his deputies not only relied on confessions in many homicide cases but also themselves interrogated homicide suspects. The seeds …

The Personality Of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Aubrey Immelman, Jamie Thielman

Psychology Faculty Publications

This paper presents the results of an indirect assessment of the personality of U.S. Supreme Court associate justice Clarence Thomas, from the conceptual perspective of Theodore Millon.

Information concerning Justice Thomas was collected from biographical sources, speeches, and published reports and synthesized into a personality profile using the second edition of the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria (MIDC), which yields 34 normal and maladaptive personality classifications congruent with Axis II of DSM-IV.

The personality profile yielded by the MIDC was analyzed on the basis of interpretive guidelines provided in the MIDC and Millon Index of Personality Styles manuals. Justice …

The Majoritarian Rehnquist Court?, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Preface, Jaime L. Henshaw

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Through The Lens Of Diversity: The Fight For Judicial Elections After Republic Party Of Minnesota V. White, Sherrilyn A. Ifill

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article is directed at the ongoing discussion taking place in many states and among members of the bench and bar about whether states that elect judges should switch to appointment in light of White. The author argues that states should resist what he regards as the Court's heavy-handed dicta denouncing judicial elections in White. Rather than accede to the pressure to shift from an elective to an appointive system-pressure that is being felt in several states- the author contends that states should regard the White decision as an opportunity to engage in a thorough and far-reaching review …

Does A Diverse Judiciary Attain A Rule Of Law That Is Inclusive?: What Grutter V. Bollinger Has To Say About Diversity On The Bench, Sylvia R. Lazos Vargas

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article concludes that political dialogue engendered by controversial minority judicial nominations, like those of Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, could be an avenue to educating the polity as to why it is important to achieve greater minority representation on the bench. The pluralistic process-based model of judging advocates that a critical mass of diverse judges be achieved, not that the minority judges be liberal rather than conservative, communitarian rather than individualist, or Democrat rather than Republican. The goal is that there be a critical mass of minority judges on benches that make decisions as a group, like circuit …

Judicial Independence And The Ambiguity Of Article Iii Protections, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Is the federal judiciary truly an independent body? A quick glance at the Constitution would suggest the answer is yes. The Constitution provides for life tenure and a difficult removal process for federal judges that together, as the common wisdom goes, shield federal judges from the shifting winds of the more political branches and the public at large. The author of this essay argues, however, that on a closer examination of the protections provided for by the Constitution, judicial independence might be more mirage than truism. Threats to judicial independence arise not only externally through the actions of the other …

Section 2: Judicial Confirmation Process, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Mediated Popular Constitutionalism, Barry Friedman

Michigan Law Review

There are divergent views in the legal academy concerning judicial review, but at their core these views share a common (and possibly flawed) premise. The premise is that the exercise of judicial review is countermajoritarian in nature. There is a regrettable lack of clarity in the relevant scholarship about what "countermajoritarian" actually means. At bottom it often seems to be a claim, and perhaps must be a claim, that when judges invalidate governmental decisions based upon constitutional requirements, they act contrary to the preferences of the citizenry. Some variation on this premise seems to drive most normative scholarship regarding judicial …

Appellate Courts Inside And Out, Maxwell L. Stearns

Michigan Law Review

While the United States Supreme Court has been the object of seemingly endless scholarly commentary, the United States Courts of Appeals are just now coming into their own as a subject of independent academic inquiry. This is an important development when one considers that the vast bulk of relevant precedents governing most federal court litigation comes not from the Supreme Court, but rather from the United States Courts of Appeals. Because relatively few courts of appeals decisions are reviewed in the Supreme Court, with rare exception, the federal circuit courts provide the functional equivalent of that Court's proverbial "last word." …

A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus And Deference On The Supreme Court, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has struck down federal statutes by a bare majority with unprecedented frequency. This Article shows that five-four decisions regularly overturning acts of Congress are a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas earlier Courts generally exercised judicial review by supermajority voting.

One option is to establish the following rule: The Supreme Court may not declare an act of Congress unconstitutional without a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court itself could establish this rule internally, just as it has created its nonmajority rules for granting certiorari and holds, or one Justice who would otherwise be the fifth …

Congress And The Making Of The Second Rehnquist Court, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Interpretation And Institutions, Cass R. Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule

Michigan Law Review

Suppose that a statute, enacted several decades ago, bans the introduction of any color additive in food if that additive "causes cancer" in human beings or animals. Suppose that new technologies, able to detect low-level carcinogens, have shown that many potential additives cause cancer, even though the statistical risk is often tiny - akin to the risk of eating two peanuts with governmentally-permitted levels of aflatoxins. Suppose, finally, that a company seeks to introduce a certain color additive into food, acknowledging that the additive causes cancer, but urging that the risk is infinitesimal, and that if the statutory barrier were …

Reply: The Institutional Dimension Of Statutory And Constitutional Interpretation, Richard A. Posner

Michigan Law Review

Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue in Interpretation and lnstitutions that judicial interpretation of statutes and constitutions should take account both of the institutional framework within which interpretation takes place and of the consequences of different styles of interpretation; they further argue that this point has been neglected by previous scholars. The first half of the thesis is correct but obvious; the second half, which the authors state in terms emphatic to the point of being immodest, is incorrect. Moreover, the authors offer no feasible suggestions for how the relation between interpretation and the institutional framework might be studied better …

Who Was William Marbury?, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Of all the disappointed office seekers in American history, only William Marbury has been so honored as to have his portrait hung in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court alongside that of James Madison. The two titular protagonists to the Marbury v. Madison dispute had no idea that their original contretemps would ever find its way to litigation, let alone eventual mythic significance as the foundation stone of judicial review.