This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
Clarence Thomas is one of the most vilified public figures of our day. To date, however, his legal philosophy has received only cursory treatment. First Principles provides a portrait of Thomas based not on the justice's caricatured reputation, but on his judicial opinions and votes, his scholarly writings, and his public speeches. The paperback edition includes a provocative new Afterword by the author bringing the book up to date by assessing Justice Thomas's performance, and the reaction to his decisions, during the last five years.
Are judges supposed to be objective? Citizens, scholars, and legal professionals commonly assume that subjectivity and objectivity are opposites, with the corollary that subjectivity is a vice and objectivity is a virtue. These assumptions underlie passionate debates over adherence to original intent and judicial activism. In Common Law Judging, Douglas Edlin challenges these widely held assumptions by reorienting the entire discussion. Rather than analyze judging in terms of objectivity and truth, he argues that we should instead approach the role of a judge’s individual perspective in terms of intersubjectivity and validity. Drawing upon Kantian aesthetic theory as well as case law, legal theory, and constitutional theory, Edlin develops a new conceptual framework for the respective roles of the individual judge and of the judiciary as an institution, as well as the relationship between them, as integral parts of the broader legal and political community. Specifically, Edlin situates a judge’s subjective responses within a form of legal reasoning and reflective judgment that must be communicated to different audiences. Edlin concludes that the individual values and perspectives of judges are indispensable both to their judgments in specific cases and to the independence of the courts. According to the common law tradition, judicial subjectivity is a virtue, not a vice.
With keen insight into the common law mind, Edlin argues that there are rich resources within the law for judges to ground their opposition to morally outrageous laws, and a legal obligation on them to overturn it, consequent on the general common law obligation to develop the law. Thus, seriously unjust laws pose for common law judges a dilemma within the law, not just a moral challenge to the law, a conflict of obligations, not just a crisis of conscience. While rooted firmly in the history of common law jurisprudence, Edlin offers an entirely fresh perspective on an age-old jurisprudential conundrum. Edlin's case for his thesis is compelling." ---Gerald J. Postema, Cary C. Boshamer Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and author of Bentham and the Common Law Tradition "Douglas Edlin builds a powerful historical, conceptual, and moral case for the proposition that judges on common law grounds should refuse to enforce unjust legislation. This is sure to be controversial in an age in which critics already excoriate judges for excessive activism when conducting constitutional judicial review. Edlin's challenge to conventional views is bold and compelling." ---Brian Z. Tamanaha, Chief Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo Professor of Law, St. John's University, and author of Law as a Means to an End: Threat to the Rule of Law "Professor Edlin's fascinating and well-researched distinction between constitutional review and common law review should influence substantially both scholarship on the history of judicial power in the United States and contemporary jurisprudential debates on the appropriate use of that power." ---Mark Graber, Professor of Law and Government, University of Maryland, and author of Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil Is a judge legally obligated to enforce an unjust law? In Judges and Unjust Laws, Douglas E. Edlin uses case law analysis, legal theory, constitutional history, and political philosophy to examine the power of judicial review in the common law tradition. He finds that common law tradition gives judges a dual mandate: to apply the law and to develop it. There is no conflict between their official duty and their moral responsibility. Consequently, judges have the authority---perhaps even the obligation---to refuse to enforce laws that they determine unjust. As Edlin demonstrates, exploring the problems posed by unjust laws helps to illuminate the institutional role and responsibilities of common law judges. Douglas E. Edlin is Associate Professor of Political Science at Dickinson College.
Seeking Justice is the second book in a three part story. It is a true story of the inside of the Canadian Justice system. The names have been changed but the events are real. It is a story of injustice that people can endure and how even the innocent can go to jail. Who will be there in your time of need? Who can you trust? Who would support and love you in the dark? It is a story of being the victory and not the victim and standing firmly in your innocents.
The book tells the story of a highly controversial civil rights case which involved the Alaska salmon industry. That industry is an intense summer operation in mostly remote wilderness. The participants were drawn from a wide range of sources: Natives who had harvested salmon for centuries, Italian, Croatian and Scandinavian fishermen and Asians who historically manned the canning lines. The unskilled cannery work was supplied by a predominantly Filipino controlled union. In the early 1970s young activist members of that union initiated a class action suit against Wards Cove Packing Company contending that minority employees were segregated into separate housing and messing and excluded from better paying jobs. The plaintiff s lost the case at trial to the surprise of many and multiple appeals followed. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, over a bitter dissent, ruled in favor of Wards Cove holding that discrimination had not been proven by either the class of workers or by any single worker. The high courts decision was roundly criticized in the press and academia and Congress attempted to intervene. The executive branch became an advocate, first as a party, and later as a friend of the court but changed sides after an election. The case tested the boundary of separation of powers but ultimately the Supreme Court found a way to insulate its decisional process from Congressional interference. There has been a lingering misunderstanding of the case in the media. It has been recently re-enacted as a denial of justice and it has been described by some academics as the death knell of the civil rights movement. This book explains how the plaintiff s lost the main event at trial and how multiple appeals heard by 27 judges did not change the facts as found by the trial court as to what actually happened.
Learn how to respond to a judge's questions directly and persuasively. Written by a trial judge, this book offers practical advice and thoughtfull, analysis that will help you answer questions effectively. that will help you answer questions effectively.
An urgent and gripping look at the erosion of voting rights and its implications for democracy, told through the stories of 9 Supreme Court decisions—and the next looming case In The Court v. The Voters, law professor Joshua Douglas takes us behind the scenes of significant cases in voting rights—some surprising and unknown, some familiar—to investigate the historic crossroads that have irrevocably changed our elections and the nation. In crisp and accessible prose, Douglas tells the story of each case, sheds light on the intractable election problems we face as a result, and highlights the unique role the highest court has played in producing a broken electoral system. Douglas charts infamous cases like: Bush v. Gore, which opened the door to many election law claims Citizens United, which contributed to skewed representation—but perhaps not in the way you might think Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the vital protections of the Voting Rights Act Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board, which allowed states to enforce voter ID laws and make it harder for people to vote The Court v. The Voters powerfully reminds us of the tangible, real-world effects from the Court’s voting rights decisions. While we can—and should—lament the democracy that might have been, Douglas argues that we can—and should—double down in our efforts to protect the right to vote.
Nominated in 1858 by the infant Republican party to oppose Stephen A. Douglas, Abraham Lincoln challenged the incumbent Democratic senator from Illinois to a series of debates. This volume contains their masterful arguments as well as two speeches, one by each candidate. Paving the way for modern debates between political candidates, the Lincoln-Douglas debates were more than formal discussions between opponents. Lincoln lost the election; but the speeches brought him to national attention and helped propel him to the Presidency in 1860.
Carefully recorded by reporters in 1858, the debates between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln resulted in a win by Douglas in his campaign for U.S. Senate. In contrast to Douglas's Popular Sovereignty stance, Lincoln stated that the country could not survive as half-slave and half-free states. The Lincoln-Douglas debates drew the attention of the entire nation and set the stage for Lincoln's successful 1860 race for the United States Presidency.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.