Judges Commons^™

Governor's Remarks, George Pataki

Pace Law Review

Remarks by Gov. George Pataki on Law Day at Pace University School of Law, May 1, 1996.

Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis Of Federal Law, Third Edition, Charles G. Geyh

Books & Book Chapters by Maurer Faculty

Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law outlines the statutory framework of federal judicial disqualification law under statutes 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 144, 47, and 2106. The monograph revises and expands on the previous editions, and analyzes the case law, with a focus both on substantive disqualification standards and procedural requirements.

Taking Judicial Legitimacy Seriously, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Chief Justice Roberts appears worried about judicial legitimacy. In Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, he explicitly worries about the message the Court would send if it wades into the gerrymandering debate. More explicitly, he worries about “the status and integrity” of the Court if is seen as taking sides in politically charged controversies. Similarly, during his confirmation hearing, Roberts warned that the Court has a limited role in our constitutional scheme and must stay within it. To decide cases on the basis of policy and not law would compromise the Court’s legitimacy. This Essay is skeptical. For one, …

What Members Of Congress Say About The Supreme Court And Why It Matters, Carolyn Shapiro

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Republican and Democratic senators took strikingly different approaches to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. Republicans focused on judicial process—what judges are supposed to do, how they are constrained, and the significance of the constitutional separation of powers—evoking rhetoric long used by the political right. Democrats, by contrast, focused primarily on case outcomes, complaining, for example, that Gorsuch favored “the big guy” over “the little guy” in cases he decided as a judge on the Tenth Circuit. This Article critiques the Democrats’ failure to discuss judicial process and to promote their own affirmative vision of the judiciary and the Constitution. A …

Keynote Address: Judging The Political And Political Judging: Justice Scalia As Case Study, Richard L. Hasen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This is a revised version of a Keynote Address delivered at “The Supreme Court and American Politics,” a symposium held October 17, 2017 at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. In this Address, Professor Hasen considers through the lens of Justice Scalia’s opinions the role that views of the political process play, at least rhetorically, in how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. It focuses on Justice Scalia’s contradictory views on self-dealing and incumbency protection across a range of cases, comparing campaign finance on the one hand to partisan gerrymandering, voter identification laws, political patronage, and ballot access rules on the other. …

Neil Gorsuch And The Ginsburg Rules, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Using empirical data on every question asked and answered at every hearing from 1939–2017, we explore this “rule,” and its attribution to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We demonstrate three things. First, the Ginsburg Rule is poorly named, given that the practice of claiming a privilege to not respond to certain types of questions predates the …

Evaluation Of Circuit Judge Kavanaugh’S Opinions Concerning The Caa, Arnold W. Reitze Jr.

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Nineteen opinions by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh in the D.C. Circuit dealing with the Clean Air Act (CAA) were reviewed. In eleven of the cases, Circuit Judge Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. In two cases he wrote a concurring opinion and in six cases he dissented. The cases where Circuit Judge Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion are: (1) Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA, 864 F.3d 691 (2017); (2) Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, 866 F.3d 451(2017); (3) Energy Future Coalition v. EPA, 793 F.3d 141 (2015); (4) EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (2015); (5) In …

Undocumented Crime Victims: Unheard, Unnumbered, And Unprotected, Pauline Portillo

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming

The First Amendment Case For Public Access To Secret Algorithms Used In Criminal Trials, Vera Eidelman

Georgia State University Law Review

As this Article sets forth, once a computerized algorithm is used by the government, constitutional rights may attach. And, at the very least, those rights require that algorithms used by the government as evidence in criminal trials be made available—both to litigants and the public. Scholars have discussed how the government’s refusal to disclose such algorithms runs afoul of defendants’ constitutional rights, but few have considered the public’s interest in these algorithms—or the widespread impact that public disclosure and auditing could have on ensuring their quality.

This Article aims to add to that discussion by setting forth a theory of …

Garbage In, Garbage Out: Revising Strickland As Applied To Forensic Science Evidence, Mark Loudon-Brown

Georgia State University Law Review

Sophisticated scientific evidence may be an undesirable subject matter for a judge to tackle anew, and it can be even more daunting for a defense attorney to confront, particularly one faced with a crushing caseload. It can be tempting to avoid a challenge to a vulnerable forensic science discipline—be it new, novel, or simply recently called into question—when a lawyer reasonably believes that the evidence will be admitted regardless.

Worse still, it may seem reasonable to disregard any adversarial challenge to incriminatory science altogether, and to opt instead for a different defense or to encourage a guilty plea. With hundreds …

The History, Meaning, And Use Of The Words Justice And Judge, Jason Boatright

St. Mary's Law Journal

The words justice and judge have similar meanings because they have a common ancestry. They are derived from the same Latin term, jus, which is defined in dictionaries as “right” and “law.” However, those definitions of jus are so broad that they obscure the details of what the term meant when it formed the words that eventually became justice and judge. The etymology of jus reveals the kind of right and law it signified was related to the concepts of restriction and obligation. Vestiges of this sense of jus survived in the meaning of justice and judge. …

Abortion Rights And The Kavanaugh Nomination, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Last week, President Trump nominated federal appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the Supreme Court seat opened by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Immediately, coverage of the nomination focused on abortion and whether Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation would spell the end of the constitutional right recognized in Roe v. Wade. Let's explore why."

Oral Argument Tactics From The Supreme Court Bench: An Analysis Of Neil Gorsuch’S First Term, Corinne Cichowicz

Politics Summer Fellows

This paper analyzes Gorsuch’s approach to oral argument through careful reading of the oral argument transcripts from the 2017 term and use of scholarship on justices’ behavioral tendencies during oral argument. The paper builds upon previous scholars’ understandings of oral argument by testing whether Gorsuch’s first full term is consistent with the typical behavioral patterns of justices. Yet, the paper goes beyond many other scholars’ methodologies by using tool and content analysis before determining Gorsuch’s approach and identifying a cause for his specific behaviors. The paper finds that Gorsuch does not fit into one category of modern justices’ approaches to …

Judges And Their Editors, Douglas E. Abrams

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Balanced Judicial Realism In The Service Of Justice: Judge Richard D. Cudahy, Elizabeth Mertz, Cynthia Grant Bowman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

There is a quiet irony to be found in scholarly writings about the judiciary, which often center around high-profile jurists selected as the “great” judges. But there are great judges who do not receive or even want such widespread recognition, and who do not discuss their philosophy of judging—they simply focus on the job in front of them. Judges who operate with humility can often be very quiet about their legacies—brushing the issue off, as if uncomfortable with the attention. Anyone who knew Judge Richard D. Cudahy of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will recognize …

The Texas Standards For Appellate Conduct: An Annotated Guide And Commentary, Gina M. Benavides, Joshua J. Caldwell

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The legal profession is bound by ethical rules that govern and guide our conduct and actions as lawyers. One of the under-appreciated, but profoundly important set of guidelines is the Texas Standards for Appellate Conduct. These Standards serve as an excellent practice guide for appellate practitioners and appellate courts and as a model code of conduct for the Bar as a whole.

The goal of this Article is to dissect the Texas Standards for Appellate Conduct and provide useful commentaries for the readers to better appreciate and understand each element of the Standards. The commentaries provide direct case examples and …

The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-Worthy Women, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

Four women have served as Associate Justices on the United States Supreme Court. Since the Court’s inception in 1789, 162 individuals have been nominated to serve as Supreme Court Justices. Five nominees, or roughly 3 percent, have been women. To help put this gender dearth in perspective, more men named “Samuel” have served as Supreme Court Justices than women. Thirteen U.S. Presidents have nominated more people to the Supreme Court than the total number of women that have served on the Court. Finally, there are currently more Catholics serving on the Supreme Court than the number of women appointed in …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Michael J. Yelnosky's Blog: Janus V. Afscme And "Weaponizing The First Amendment 06-30-2018, Michael J. Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

What Makes A Good Judge?, Brian M. Barry

Reports

This article overviews research demonstrating the factors beyond the law that can affect judicial decision-making.

Scotus's 2017-2018 Term: More Of The 'Passive Virtues', John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[exerpt] "Examine a timelier topic: the court's decision to effectively punt on the major religious freedom and partisan gerrymandering cases it was poised to decide this term. For the court's restrain in these cases may have some relation to our turbulent political times."