Judges Commons^™

Washington Civil Jury Trials Via Zoom: Perspectives From The Bench, Marisa Pasnick

Washington Law Review

Many professions have felt the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, including the legal field. At the onset of COVID-19, many courthouses closed and trials halted, but as the pandemic continued, the need to resume judicial proceedings led courts to turn to virtual platforms to conduct civil jury trials. This Comment examines the response of judges in Washington State to the use of Zoom for conducting civil jury trials. Interviews with judges across Washington reveal a stark contrast in opinions among judges in different districts as well as within districts. This Comment answers the question of how judges feel about …

Judicial Discipline Through The Prism Of Public Law Values: A Critical Analysis Of Bill C-9, An Act To Reform The Judges Act, Richard Devlin, Sheila Wildeman

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Bill C-9 is the first legislative reform to the Judges Act in five decades. The goal of the legislation is to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice by modernizing the complaints and discipline system for federally appointed judges. In a previous essay published in Volume ?? of the Advocates’ Quarterly we offered a normative framework for assessment of a complaints and discipline system and identified seven key strengths of Bill C-9. In this sequel, we continue to apply this normative framework and argue that the legislation is marred by five significant weaknesses. We conclude that because the reforms …

Cover, Table Of Contents & Masthead, Mariam Antony

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Egypt’S Legal Modernism: Challenging The National Discourse, Mohamed A. El-Deeb

Theses and Dissertations

Egypt’s legal modernity is the story of the modern Egyptian state itself. Reforming the country’s judiciary in the late nineteenth century was meant to achieve ambitious aims beyond the functionality of a justice system. The utmost goal was the country’s independence from the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire. The judicial reforms modernized the Egyptian state and built a judiciary and legal community like no other place. Egypt achieved its independent judiciary before gaining its political independence. That was a remarkable achievement of the judicial reform. That rich part of Egypt’s modern history is negated and disregarded from public awareness. Not …

Houston, We Have A Problem: The D.C. Circuit Closes Pathway To National Judicial Review In Sierra Club V. Environmental Protection Agency, Alison O. Moyer

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise, David S. Caudill, Harry Collins, Robert Evans

University of Cincinnati Law Review

One of the most constructive critiques of the Daubert admissibility regime is Professor Edward Cheng’s recent proposal for a new Consensus Rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rejecting the notion that judges and juries have the capacity to evaluate scientific expertise, Cheng’s proposal would eliminate Daubert hearings—and judicial gatekeeping concerning expert testimony—and require judges and juries, in their verdicts, to follow consensus in the relevant scientific community. Significantly, Cheng argues that judges and juries would have an easier time identifying consensus than they have in deciding between experts who disagree.

We find Cheng’s emphasis on consensus compelling, and …

In Conversation About The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’S New Mass Atrocity Prevention Training, Tatiana Varanko, Ann O’Rourke

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

Governance And Islam In East Africa: Muslims And The State In Kenya And Tanzania, Farouk Topan, Kai Kresse, Erin E. Stiles, Hassan Mwakimako

Exploring Muslim Contexts

Explores the relationship between Muslim communities and the State in East Africa in political, institutional and legal contexts

• Focuses on the relationship between Muslims and the State in Kenya and Tanzania
• Asks which factors, both within and outside the Muslim community, shape and affect this relationship in contemporary times
• Presents 13 case studies exploring governance issues within and across the categories of politics, institutions and law in Kenya and Tanzania
• Identifies cross-cutting issues of governance and Muslim communities which are relevant beyond East Africa

Recent studies of Muslims in Kenya and Tanzania have tended either to examine governance of Muslims …

Immoderate Moderation: Chief Justice Roberts's Concurrence In Dobbs, Thomas J. Molony

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Chief Justice John Roberts attempted to chart a middle way in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But there are times when you must choose a side. This was one of them.

The Chief Justice has been a consistent proponent of judicial restraint since he joined the United States Supreme Court in 2005. For him, one of the key characteristics of restraint is deciding no more than necessary to resolve a case. In Dobbs, he insisted that the Court did not need to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in full to uphold Mississippi’s fifteen-week …

An Apt Analogy?: Rethinking The Role Of Judicial Deference To The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Post-Kisor, Amy Walker

Fordham Law Review

Since its inception in 1984, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) has struggled to garner and maintain a sense of legitimacy among federal judges. The tension is both a story about competing expertise between judges and the Commission and competing values, namely uniformity and individuality. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stinson v. United States prioritized uniformity by telling lower courts to treat the Commission as they would any other administrative agency. Lower courts—for the most part—faithfully executed this directive until 2019, when the Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie gave them another option, one that seemed to leave …

Amendment 80 And The Effects On Arkansas Supreme Court Elections, Sydney Kincaid

Political Science Undergraduate Honors Theses

In 2001, Amendment 80 was implemented into the Arkansas Constitution. One part of this Amendment was changing statewide judicial elections from being partisan to nonpartisan. This research project seeks to analyze the impact of Amendment 80 on Arkansas Supreme Court elections. The research considers how three components of elections have been impacted by the Amendment which are diversity of candidates, level of competition, and voter turnout. Data collection was conducted for all Arkansas Supreme Court elections from 2002-2022. The information that was collected includes election records as well as descriptive characteristics of candidates including race, gender, raw vote, opposed versus …

A Botched Procedure For Removing A High Court Judge: A Critique Of Joshua Ndipyola Banda V Attorney General 2022/Ccz/0010, O'Brien Kaaba

SAIPAR Case Review

The judiciary performs a key role in implementing the constitution and safeguarding constitutional order. Democracy cannot thrive when the judiciary is pliant. An independent judiciary is fundamental to constitutional democracy. Not only should judges be appointed in a transparent and credible manner, but their removal should insulate the judiciary from potential reprisals. Certainly, incompetent, and professionally unfit judges should have no place in the judiciary and judges who grossly misconduct themselves should be held accountable and in extreme cases, must be removed from office. However, how judges are removed has an impact on the autonomy of the judiciary. If the …

Sangwa V Attorney General And Law Association Of Zambia (2021 /Ccz/0012) [2023] Zmcc 6 (31 July 2023), Hope Sthembile Homela, Robert Farbman, J. P. Swenson

SAIPAR Case Review

This case underscores the critical need for the judiciary to assert its financial independence, ensuring that its budget and resources are not subject to undue influence or control by the executive. In this landmark ruling, the Constitutional Court missed an important opportunity to set a stronger precedent for the autonomy of the judiciary by not fully addressing the constitutional violations at hand relating to the financial independence of the judiciary. The Court’s decision, while acknowledging the issue of financial independence, failed to provide a decisive remedy to protect the judiciary from the continuing risk of executive interference. Recognizing the necessity …

Murder And A Mother’S Love: Understanding Maternal Altruistic Filicide And Reshaping The Legal System’S Approach To Mentally Ill Mothers Who Kill Their Children, Morgan Woodbridge

Journal of Law and Policy

Every year, thousands of children are killed by their parents. Some of these killings are committed by mentally ill mothers who believe that death is in their children's best interest. This category of killings is called maternal altruistic filicide. Numerous studies have found that mothers who commit altruistic filicide are severely mentally ill and have histories of psychiatric illness, trauma, and suicidality. Despite this, mothers who commit altruistic filicide are often railroaded through the criminal legal system without access to adequate mental health care. Traditional legal procedures designed to assist the mentally ill, such as the insanity defense or the …

Constitutional Rights And Remedial Consistency, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

When the Supreme Court declined definitively to block Texas’s S.B. 8, which effectively eliminated pre-enforcement federal remedies for what was then a plainly unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights, a prominent criticism was that the majority would have never tolerated the similar treatment of preferred legal protections—like gun rights. This refrain reemerged when California enacted a copycat regime for firearms regulation. This theme sounds in the deep-rooted idea that judge-made law should adhere to generality and neutrality values requiring doctrines to derive justification from controlling a meaningful class of cases ascertained by objective legal criteria.

This Article is about consistency, and …

Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise, David S. Caudill, Harry Collins, Robert Evans

Faculty Publications

One of the most constructive critiques of the Daubert admissibility regime is Professor Edward Cheng’s recent proposal for a new Consensus Rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rejecting the notion that judges and juries have the capacity to evaluate scientific expertise, Cheng’s proposal would eliminate Daubert hearings—and judicial gatekeeping concerning expert testimony—and require judges and juries, in their verdicts, to follow consensus in the relevant scientific community. Significantly, Cheng argues that judges and juries would have an easier time identifying consensus than they have in deciding between experts who disagree.

We find Cheng’s emphasis on consensus compelling, and …

Reassessing Administrative Finality: The Importance Of New Evidence And Changed Circumstances, Gwendolyn Savitz

Cleveland State Law Review

Administrative finality of agency action is generally thought of as a method of avoiding premature judicial review—a claim that the review is too early. But it is also used to prevent judicial review by claiming that the review has now come too late. There are two primary exceptions to this prohibition: new evidence and changed circumstances. However, courts and agencies are reluctant to permit challengers to use these exceptions as often as should be statutorily allowed, an area that scholarship has been neglected.

This Article fills the gap by exploring this aspect of administrative finality, looking at the important government …

Law School News: 2024 Rbg Essay & Art Contest Winners Recognized At Women In Law Leadership Lecture 4-16-24, Roger Williams University School News

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Silent Today, Conversant Tomorrow: Education Adequacy As A Political Question, Yeju Hwang

Northwestern University Law Review

When the Supreme Court declined to recognize the right to education as one fundamental to liberty, and thus unprotected by the U.S. Constitution, state courts took on the mantle as the next best fora for those yearning for judicial review of inequities present in American public schools. The explicit inclusion of the right to education in each state’s constitution carried the torch of optimism into the late twentieth century. Despite half a century of litigation in the states, the condition of the nation’s public school system remains troubling and perhaps increasingly falls short of expectations. Less competitive on an international …

Partisanship Creep, Katherine Shaw

Northwestern University Law Review

It was once well settled and uncontroversial—reflected in legislative enactments, Executive Branch practice, judicial doctrine, and the broader constitutional culture—that the Constitution imposed limits on government partisanship. This principle was one instantiation of a broader set of rule of law principles: that law is not merely an instrument of political power; that government resources should not be used to further partisan interests, or to damage partisan adversaries.

For at least a century, each branch of the federal government has participated in the development and articulation of this nonpartisanship principle. In the legislative realm, federal statutes beginning with the 1883 Pendleton …