|
6 Rutgers J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 1 (2008)
This essay is a
polemic. As an attorney turned political scientist, it reflects my
reaction to a pervasive theme that permeates much of the political
science literature, particularly within the subfield of law and
politics. It is intended to air concerns that will likely resonate with
many in the legal community. Legal professionals who have had the
opportunity to study political science scholarship are no doubt shocked
by the wide gulf that appears to exist between assumptions of some
political scientists and the professional norms of the legal
profession. Political science has produced a significant body of
scholarship that portrays judges as mere political actors, intent on
carrying forth a primarily ideological agenda. This is a troubling
distortion of what judges and other legal professionals are explicitly
trained to do – interpret the law objectively. It is my
genuine hope that this essay will help shed light on this
contradiction. ...
[ read more]
6 Rutgers J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 35 (2008)
On February 21,
2008, the
thirteen commissioners of Miami-Dade County approved a plan to spend
$347 million in taxpayer money to build a new 37,000-seat
retractable-roof ballpark for the Florida Marlins baseball club. The
plan requires the county to contribute roughly two thirds of the cost
for the new ballpark, with the city of Miami contributing three percent
($10 million) and the team owner, Jeffrey Loria, contributing the
remaining thirty percent ($155 million). Loria would then defray most,
if not all, of his costs by selling stadium naming rights to a third
party. ...
[ read more]
6 Rutgers J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
78 (2008)
My thesis is
that the Military Commissions Act represents a total failure of
Congress to pay attention to some basic propositions of international
treaty and customary law and a failure to exercise its powers under the
Constitution. The Congress that passed the legislation was led by
Republicans, but I have not seen the Democrats rushing to correct the
errors. In short, a plague on both their houses! ...
[ read more]
6 Rutgers J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 149 (2008)
The writ of
habeas corpus is perhaps the most fundamental guarantee of liberty in a
democracy. The United States’ federal habeas corpus statute
was first enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. As Justice
Stevens has noted, habeas corpus is “however, ‘a
writ antecedent to statute . . . throwing its root deep into the genius
of our common law.’ The writ appeared in English law several
centuries ago, became ‘an integral part of our common-law
heritage’ by the time the Colonies achieved independence . .
. .” One of the most significant features of the Military
Commissions Act (“MCA”) is its elimination of
jurisdiction by any court over habeas corpus applications filed on
behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been
“determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such
determination.” In Boumediene II, the Supreme Court decided
that the MCA’s elimination of habeas corpus rights violates
the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This case note will
evaluate some of the potential impacts of the decision. ...
[ read more]
6 Rutgers J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 175 (2008)
U.S. federal courts have held
as a matter of law that torture is within the “scope of
employment” of federal officials. Under the current absolute
immunity doctrine, such a determination results in the automatic
substitution of the United States as defendant. Since the United States
is immune from torture liability because of sovereign immunity and
various exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), victims of
torture by U.S. officials are left without a remedy. The law currently
used to make the scope of employment determination is state respondeat
superior law. This Article argues that federal common law should be
used when the torts at issue are violations of international law,
especially jus cogens norms, because state law should not be used to
decide matters involving international law and because, where possible,
U.S. statutes should always be interpreted to be consistent with
international law. ...
[ read more]
|
