I guess if one has a sufficiently robust notion of judicial power, judges
can do just about anything. For example, if Sandy's suggested theory is
correct, a similar injunction (or declaratory judgment) could be issued
against members of Congress to prevent them from voting for a bill that the
I haven't been able to find the motion seeking recusal (has anyone seen
it?), but press accounts indicate that it was predicated, at least in part,
on a claimed violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The relevant
provision would seem to be:
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES
Canon
When I first read the court of appeals decision in Sabri (while looking for
an exam question last semester), I was struck by the potential
expansiveness of its reasoning. The court emphatically rejects treating
section 666 as a conditional spending statute -- and doesn't make Eric
Muller's move
28 USC 46(c) provides that an in banc court consists of all circuit judges
in regular active service, but has an exception for circuit that have more
than 15 active judges, which can, by local rule, have smaller in banc
panels. See Public Law 95-486.
The only court of appeals, other than the 9th
Prior to 1998, parties could petition for rehearing, but could not
petition for rehearing in banc. If they wanted rehearing in banc, they
could merely suggest it. As a result, parties would file a petition for
rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing in banc.
FRAP 35 was amended in 1998 to
To clarify: I endorse Mark's reading of my post. [I hope Sandy read it the
same way; I'd hate to think that finding a point on which both Mark and
Sandy agreed was due to each of them understanding that point differently.
:)]
I was not suggesting that a court should order the use of paper
If the error rate for paper ballots and the error rate for optical scanners
(or electronic touch panels or mechanical levers) are sufficiently
different so as to violate equal protection -- and I don't know if they are
-- then the state may have to use the same method throughout the state.
If so,
the absentee ballot question an issue in the Florida
litigaton?
sincerely
Lynne
Prof. Lynne Henderson
Boyd School of Law--UNLV
4505 Maryland Pkwy
Box 451003
Las Vegas, NV 89154
702-895-2625
- Original Message -
From: Edward A Hartnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday
clippy type things to do the
punching .
CHeers
Lynne
Prof. Lynne Henderson
Boyd School of Law--UNLV
4505 Maryland Pkwy
Box 451003
Las Vegas, NV 89154
702-895-2625
- Original Message -
From: Edward A Hartnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:07 AM
John Jeffries, The Right / Remedy Gap. I think it is is Yale.
Parry, John
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Sent by: DiscussionSubject:
I can't recall off the top of my head precisely where I found it -- it was
some official government site -- but I am attaching a Adobe file with the
information you are seeking.
I wouldn't ordinarily send an attachment to the list, but since It is only
5 pages long, I don't think that should
There is at least one instance in which the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the
inferior federal courts jurisdiction over cases that fall within the
Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
Article III allocates to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction all
cases affecting ambassadors, other public
I'm still not sure what Mark means here by positing that a situation in
which a lower federal court reverses a state court decision.
Under the statutes that have been in effect from the Judiciary Act of 1789
forward, the inferior federal courts have lacked appellate jurisdiction
over state court
We seem to have this discussion every year or so -- but it is a discussion
worth having every year or so.
To summarize my takeaway from those discussions and some additional
research and reflection.
In 1813, the Supreme Court held that the federal circuit courts created by
the Judiciary Act of
I agree that Coleman, although alive, has been pushed into a corner by
Raines. And I acknowledge that it may be still further narrowed to
situations involving US Supreme Court review of state court judgments where
the state court has recognized legislative standing -- and therefore not
applicable
, but the Nevada Supreme Court states it
more bluntly than others, and the view is worth criticizing at every turn.
Ed Hartnett
Seton Hall
Ann Althouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Edward A
Hartnett
u
Members of the bar -- at least here in New Jersey, and I would have thought
in other states as well -- take an oath to support both the US constitution
and the New Jersey constitution. Didn't most members of this list take a
similar oath at some point in their lives? Or are those who have raised
17 matches
Mail list logo
