Roger Williams university law review最新文献

Labor Law Illiteracy: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and Janus v. AFSCME 劳动法文盲:史诗系统公司诉刘易斯案和Janus诉AFSCME案

Roger Williams university law review Pub Date : 2018-09-04 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3243854

Michael J. Yelnosky

引用次数: 0

Taking Justice Kennedy Seriously: Why Windsor Was Decided "quite apart from principles of federalism 认真对待肯尼迪法官:为什么温莎案被判决”完全脱离了联邦制的原则

Roger Williams university law review Pub Date : 2014-03-20 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2319487

H. Knowles

{"title":"Taking Justice Kennedy Seriously: Why Windsor Was Decided \"quite apart from principles of federalism","authors":"H. Knowles","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2319487","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2319487","url":null,"abstract":"In this article I refute the argument, made by many scholars in the immediate aftermath of the announcement of United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013 (striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)), that Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in that case is primarily a federalism decision. Drawing on arguments that I made in The Tie Goes to Freedom: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty (2009), I argue that in Windsor the commitment made by the Justice is instead very clearly to equal liberty, just as it was in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). That commitment wholeheartedly embraces the spirit of egalitarianism and social justice that lies at the heart of the legacy of the Great Society speech that President Johnson gave at the University of Michigan fifty years ago, in May 1964. The “abundance and liberty for all” imperative of which the President spoke was at the time focused upon, and remains today best-remembered for addressing racial and wealth inequities. However, the progressive themes of the speech are grounded in broader moral principles that today apply as much to the battles fought on behalf of the LGBT community as to those designed to combat the ills of racism and poverty. The articulation of those themes in Windsor gets lost if analysis of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in that case focuses not on equal liberty but on federalism.","PeriodicalId":300536,"journal":{"name":"Roger Williams university law review","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128950427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comparative Law Methodology & American Legal Culture: Obstacles and Opportunities 比较法方法论与美国法律文化:障碍与机遇

Roger Williams university law review Pub Date : 2010-01-29 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1544489

Colin B. Picker

引用次数: 2

The Tenuous Case for Conscience 良心的脆弱案例

Roger Williams university law review Pub Date : 2004-09-20 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.590944

S. Smith

{"title":"The Tenuous Case for Conscience","authors":"S. Smith","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.590944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.590944","url":null,"abstract":"If there is any single theme that has provided the foundation of modern liberalism and has infused our more specific constitutional commitments to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, that theme is probably \"freedom of conscience.\" But some observers also perceive a progressive cheapening of conscience - even a sort of degradation. Such criticisms suggest the need for a contemporary rethinking of conscience. When we reverently invoke \"conscience,\" do we have any idea what we are talking about? Or are we just exploiting a venerable theme for rhetorical purposes without any clear sense of what \"conscience\" is or why it matters? This essay addresses two questions. The first is discussed briefly: what is \"conscience\"? What do we have in mind when we say that someone acted from \"conscience\"? A second question receives more extended discussion: granted its importance to the individuals who assert it, still, why should \"conscience\" deserve special respect or accommodation from society, or from the state? That question forces us to consider the metaethical presuppositions of claims of conscience. The discussion suggests that claims to conscience may be defensible only on certain somewhat rarified moral and metaethical assumptions. The discussion further suggests that shifts in such assumptions have transformed the meaning of claims to \"freedom of conscience,\" so that such claims typically now mean almost the opposite of what they meant when asserted by early champions of conscience such as Thomas More, Roger Williams, and John Locke.","PeriodicalId":300536,"journal":{"name":"Roger Williams university law review","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114981344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 7

Roger Williams university law review Pub Date : 2001-02-16 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.256724

J. Henderson, J. Rachlinski

{"title":"Product-Related Risk and Cognitive Biases: The Shortcomings of Enterprise Liability","authors":"J. Henderson, J. Rachlinski","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.256724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.256724","url":null,"abstract":"Products liability law has witnessed a long debate over whether manufacturers should be held strictly liable for the injuries that products cause. Recently, some have argued that psychological research on human judgment supports adopting a regime of strict enterprise liability for injuries caused by product design. These new proponents of enterprise liability argue that the current system, in which manufacturer liability for product design turns on the manufacturer's negligence, allows manufacturers to induce consumers into undertaking inefficiently dangerous levels or types of consumption. In this paper we argue that the new proponents of enterprise liability have: (1) not provided any more than anecdotal evidence for their thesis; (2) failed to account for the mechanisms the law already has available to counter manufacturer manipulation of consumers; and (3) made no effort to address the well-known problems enterprise liability creates. Furthermore, even on its own terms, the new arguments for enterprise liability fail to consider the tendency of some manufacturers to exacerbate the risks that some products pose ? a tendency that enterprise liability would exacerbate. In short, the insights gleaned from psychological research on human judgment do not support adopting a system of strict enterprise liability for products.","PeriodicalId":300536,"journal":{"name":"Roger Williams university law review","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124727196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 10

Is it Rational to Assume Consumer Rationality? Some Consumer Psychological Perspectives on Rational Choice Theory 假设消费者是理性的合理吗?理性选择理论的消费者心理学视角

Roger Williams university law review Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.239538

J. Jacoby

引用次数: 33