British Journal of American Legal Studies最新文献

{"title":"Judical Appointments in South Africa","authors":"A. Tilley, Zikhona Ndlebe","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2021-0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0013","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract South Africa is widely regarded as a model of a constitutional democracy on the African continent. This is partly because of the progressive Constitution adopted in 1996 and the fact that the country has consistently managed to conduct democratic, free and fair elections since the end of apartheid in the early 1990s. The sustainability of South Africa's constitutional democracy rests on the ability of the judiciary to ensure compliance with the constitution. The competence and credibility of the judiciary hinge on the appointment of judges who are able to reflect the diversity of the country, act without fear or favor, and develop a jurisprudence which creates and deepens constitutionalism. Judicial independence is a key component of the credibility of the judiciary. The inconsistent application of norms and standards when selecting and appointing judges tends to undermine the credibility of the appointments process. The process of judicial selection and appointment in South Africa begins with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) advertising the existing judicial vacancies. After that, the JSC shortlists candidates who are then interviewed. Following these interviews, the JSC shortlists candidates for possible appointment by the President. A review of the transcripts of interviews conducted by the JSC from April 2014 to October 2019 shows patterns of discrepancies in the types of questions which candidates vying for the same judicial position are required to answer. This Article explains the process followed by the JSC, and then identifies and analyzes the discrepancies in the process employed by the JSC. The Article then demonstrates the negative impact which the discrepancies have had on both the quality of the judicial selection process and the quality of candidates shortlisted for appointment. Furthermore, this Article makes recommendations on how South Africa can draw from international norms and standards as well as good practices from comparative jurisdictions, to enhance consistency and fairness in its judicial selection and appointments processes.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"457 - 478"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49407518","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}

{"title":"The Senate Judiciary Committee's Relationship with the Federal Courts","authors":"Mark C. Miller","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2021-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Article examines the general relationship between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the federal courts using a historical institutionalist analysis. The Senate Judiciary Committee, often known as the “Committee of Lawyers”, has adopted a very lawyer-like decision making process and style. This Article considers whether the large number of lawyers who sit on it serves to protect the federal courts from institutional attacks; it explores how the Committee can influence the number of judges sitting on any given federal court and help determine the boundaries of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. The Article explores why the Senate Judiciary Committee often serves as a graveyard for court-curbing proposals approved by the House Judiciary Committee or even the full House. The main focus of the Article is on how the Committee chair has considerable influence on the court-Congress relationship, although the chair must function within the overall decision-making culture of the Senate as a whole. It notes various chairs have approached the Blue Slip process for judicial nominees very differently, depending in part on whether the White House and the Senate are controlled by the same political party. Finally, the Article discusses how the Committee attracts ideologically extreme members of both parties and how this ideological polarization affects the Committee's interactions with the federal judiciary. The Article also provides some comparisons with the House Judiciary Committee on these issues.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"409 - 432"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49333363","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}

{"title":"Abolitionist John Brown's Treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia: A Lesson for State Governments about the Culpability of Non-Residents for Treason against the State","authors":"James A. Beckman","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2021-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyzes the specific issue of whether an individual could be tried for treason by a State government if that individual is not a resident or citizen of that State. This issue is analyzed through the prism of the landmark case of John Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia, a criminal prosecution which occurred in October 1859. Brown, a resident of New York, was convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, insurrection, and murder after he attempted to overthrow the institution of slavery by force on October 16–18, 1859. After a prosecution and trial which occurred within a matter of weeks following Brown's crimes, Brown was executed on December 2, 1859. To this day, John Brown's trial and execution remains one of the leading examples of a State government exercising its power to enforce treason law on the State level and to execute an individual for that offense. Of course, the John Brown case had a major impact on American history, including being a significant factor in the presidential election of 1860 and an often-cited spark to the powder keg of tensions between the Northern and Southern States, which would erupt into a raging conflagration between the North and South in the American Civil War a short eighteen months later. However, in the legal realm, the Brown case is one of the leading and best-known examples of a state government exercising its authority to enforce its laws prohibiting treason against the State. The purpose of this article is not to discuss treason laws generally or even all the issues applicable to John Brown's trial in 1859. Rather, this article focuses only on the very specific issue of the culpability of a non-resident/non-citizen for treason against a State government. With the increased array of hostile actions against State governments in recent years, and criminal actors crossing state lines to commit these hostile acts, this article discusses an issue of importance to contemporary society, namely whether an individual can be prosecuted and convicted for treason by a State of which the defendant is not a citizen or resident.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"61 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45892382","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}

{"title":"Assessing President Obama's Appointment of Women to the Federal Appellate Courts","authors":"Laura P. Moyer","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2021-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A major legacy of the Obama presidency was the mark he left on the federal courts with respect to increasing judicial diversity. In particular, President Obama's appointments of women to the federal judiciary exceeded all previous presidents in terms of both absolute numbers and as a share of all judges; he also appointed a record-setting number of women of color to the lower federal courts. In this Article, I take an intersectional approach to exploring variation in the professional backgrounds, qualifications, and Senate confirmation experiences of Obama's female appeals court appointees, comparing them with George W. Bush and Bill Clinton appointees. These data reveal that women of color appointed by Obama differ from both white women and minority men in terms of ABA ratings, the types of professional experiences they bring with them, and whether they were confirmed by a roll call vote.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"433 - 455"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48989457","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}

{"title":"From the Company Town to the Innovation Zone: Frontiers of Public Policy, the State Action Doctrine, and the First Amendment","authors":"Bruce G. Peabody, Kyle Morgan","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2021-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article draws on the state action doctrine and the case Marsh v. Alabama to evaluate a recent proposal to create an unprecedented public-private partnership in the state of Nevada. In Marsh, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a private citizen was protected under the U.S. Constitution's First and Fourteenth Amendments in distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a “company-owned” town. We make the case that both the state policy under consideration and a number of political and economic trend lines indicate that the issue central to Marsh remains pressing at the start of our new millennium: what are the circumstances under which concentrated private power amounts to something akin to government authority, thereby implicating the protections of the national Constitution? Our goal in this piece is not to offer an exhaustive or thorough review of the particulars of the “Innovation Zone” bill under consideration, but to consider, in advance, constitutional problems that might arise from granting corporations broad powers traditionally wielded by governments.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"37 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46746625","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}

{"title":"Prison Ships","authors":"R. Jarvis","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2021-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2026, New York City plans to close the VERNON C. BAIN, America’s only currently-operating prison ship. Although prison ships have a long history, both in the United States and elsewhere, surprisingly little has been written about them. Accordingly, this article first provides a detailed overview of prison ships. It then surveys the U.S. case law generated by them.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"281 - 334"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41844585","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}

{"title":"Orwellian Opinions: The Language of Power and the Power of Language","authors":"T. Halper","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2022-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2022-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 1984 and other writings, George Orwell explored the language of power and the power of language. As illustrations of the abuses he identified, this essay analyzes a pair of famous constitutional opinions, Justice Brown's Plessy v. Ferguson and Justice Douglas’ Griswold v. Connecticut.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"153 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47314436","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}

{"title":"To Delegate or Redelegate: Is That the Question?","authors":"T. Halper","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2021-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Conflicts between those supporting and opposing congressional redelegation to executive agencies go back to the earliest days of the Republic, but given the enormous development of the administrative state, now raise issues of great practical importance. The arguments back and forth implicate abstract notions of democracy, efficiency, and judicial power, though typically partisan and other self interested considerations actually drive the debate. The future is likely to see some retrenchment, but not wholesale rejection of redelegation, as the massive and unpredictable consequences would deter courts from acting.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"335 - 361"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69181445","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}

{"title":"The Fate of Lethal Injection: Decomposition of the Paradigm and Its Consequences","authors":"Austin D. Sarat, Mattea Denney, Nicolas Graber-Mitchell, Greene Ko, Rose Mroczka, Lauren Pelosi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3829078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3829078","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the use of lethal injection from 2010–2020. That period marks the “decomposition” of the standard three-drug protocol and the proliferating use of new drugs or drug combinations in American executions. That development is associated with an increase in the number and type of mishaps encountered during lethal injections. This article describes and analyzes those mishaps and the ways death penalty jurisdictions responded, and adapted, to them. It suggests that the recent history of lethal injection echoes the longer history of the death penalty. When states encountered problems with their previous methods of execution, they first attempted to address these problems by tinkering with their existing methods. When tinkering failed, they adopted allegedly more humane execution methods. When they ran into difficulty with the new methods, state actors scrambled to hide the death penalty from public view. New drugs and drug combinations may have allowed the machinery of death to keep running. New procedures may have given the lethal injection process a veneer of legitimacy. But none of these recent changes has resolved its fate or repaired its vexing problems.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"81 - 111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41594417","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}

{"title":"Marital Cakes and Conscientious Promises","authors":"G. P. Marcar","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2021-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The U.S. Supreme Court has recently been tasked with determining—both metaphorically and literally—whether in matters of marriage equality and religious freedom, those within society can have their cake and eat it too. This came to the fore in Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018). In most of scholarship which has followed, the respective parties’ rights in this case are parsed in terms of rights to religious expression and free speech (on the one hand), and a statutory right to non-discrimination (on the other). By approaching this matter through a primarily philosophical (rather than legal) lens, I aim to present a new perspective. Where cases involve same-sex marriage, it is argued that both sides are predicated upon religious or conscientious convictions. This is established through a philosophical argument, which examines the nature of the marital promise to love and seeks to demonstrate how this promise entails a characteristically religious sort of belief.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"201 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47101490","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}