DOCSLIB.ORG

"Points of View Or Opinions in This Document Are Those of the Authors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
"Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the funding agency." COPYRIGHT 1986 NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS WILLIAM S. HEIN 6 CO., INC. IIIIIAL The quality of this Microfiche is equivalent to the condition of the original work. WILLIAM 5. HEIN & CO., INC. I Standakds Relating to Juror Use and Management Tentative Draft .- . -7-. ,:July, 1982 American Bar Association Judicial Administration Division Committee on Jury Standards -- American Bar Association Judicial Administration Division Committee on Jury Standards Walter 3. Kane, Chairperson Honorable Janice L. Gradwohl Honorable James A. Noe Municipal Court of Lincoln- King County Superior Court Lancaster County Seatt 1e, Washing ton Lincoln, Nebraska NATIOWL CONFERENCE OF STATE TRIAL JUDGES CONFEREhCE UF SPECIAL COURT JUDGES Honorable Norma L. Shapiro John h. ljreacen US. District Court Deputy Director' for Programs Ph i1 adel phi a, Pennsylvani a National Center for State Courts NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FEDERAL TRIAL JUDGES hi11 i amsburg , Virgini a LAWYERS' CONFERENCE Honorable Roger G. Strand Associate Presiding Judge halter 3. Kane Maricopa County -Superior Court State Court Admini strator Phoenix, Arizona Providence, Rhode Island NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE TRIAL JUDGES LAWYERS' CONFERENCE Honorable Joseph R. Weisberger Edward 8. McConnelS Supreme Court of Rhode and Executive Director Providence, Rhode IslandIs? National Center for State Courts APPELLATE JUDGES' CONFERENCE Wif 1i amsburg , Virginia LAWYERS' CONFERENCE Representatives of Other Participating Organizations Donald Cullen Hank P. Rodgers llistrict Administrator Executive Officer Aus t in kinneso t a Ventura County Superior Court NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COURT Ventura, California ADFiINISTRATION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL COURT ADHI NISTRATORS James 0. Montgomery kontgomery and Holland A1 len L. Tapley Chicago, Illinois State Court Administrator NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION Montgomery, abama -- A1 CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS Honorable Roger G. Strand Maricopa County Superior Court Phoenix , Arizona NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF METROPOLITAN COURTS i National Center for State Courts Jury Standards Project Staff Linda R. Caviness, Project Director Senior Staff Associate C. Diane Barrow Richard Van Duitend Project Secretary Senior Staff Attorney Charlotte A. Carter Christina B. Yaw Staff Attorney Staff Associate The National Center project staff wish to express their appreciation to the Center for Jury Studies and to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Jury Incentive Program ,sites for their assistance and practical suggestions during the preparation of this document. Special thanks to Susan Laniewski for her assistance in preparing the final draft . of this document. ."- i: : -- Uhis project was supported by Grant Number 80-PG-AX-0033, awarded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, under the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, aS amended. The opinions, recommendations, and determinations contained herein are thcse of the Jury Standards Task Force ana the Comnittee on Jury Standards of the American Bar Association, Judicial Administration Divisior? and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Center for State - Courts or the American Bar Association. '. ii Preface This dOCUtTient, dealing with standards-for jury use and management in the state courts, is a tentative draft for review and approval by the judicial ana administrative organizations that have been involved in the drafting process. These standards address issues of the management and use of petit juries as opposed to those of grand juries. The formulation of this document has been a cooperative effort of many court organizations. Judges and court administrators representing various national organizations including several Conferences of the berican aar Association, Judicial Administration Division have met regularly over the past eighteen months to debate jury management issues and to develop the standards set forth here. The effort has necessarily been one of conflict and compromise. The team work and commitment of the ten participatiny-oryanitations working together to develop realistfc goals in this area of judicial administration should not only be comniendea, but also considerea a model effort. /- The National Center for State Courts was awarded a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to coordinate the standards development effort and to provide staff support. A Jury Standards Task force was farmea to set policy for the scope and conduct of the project; to decide the content and language of the standards; to review and approve commentary to accompany the standards; and to develop a plan for their dissemination and imp1 ementati on. Organizations represented on the original lvational Center Jury Standards Task Force include: the Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Association for Trial Court Administrators, the Flational Association for Court Administration, the National Conference of State Trial Judges, the Ivational Conference of Special Court Judges, and the National Conference of Metropolitan Courts. Organizations added during the course of the task force's work incluae the National Bar Associatim, the luational Conference of Federal Trial Judges, the Lawyers' Conference and the Appel 1 ate Judges ' Conference. At the first meeting of the task force, the representatives of the JAU Conferences suggested that the impact of the standards being aeveloped would be increased if they had the endorsement of the American bar Association. To implement this suggestion, Judge Lawrence S. Margolis, JAD Chairman, appointed a special committee of the JAD Council to work in conjunction with the task force in drafting the standards with the thought that the standards, when developed, could be submitted to the JUU for csnsideration, and, if approved by it, to the ABA House of Delegates for adoption. iii The JAD Committee on Jury Standards is composed of Judge Norma L. Shapiro (National Conference of Federal Trial Judges), Justice Joseph R. Wei sberger (Appell ate Juoges Conference) , Judge James A. Noe and Judge Roger G. Strand (National Conference of State Trial Judges), Judge Janice L. Gradwohl (National Conference of Special Court Judges), and John M. Greacen, Edward B. lvlcConnel1 , and Walter 3. Kane (Lawyer's Conference). Since its appointment in the fall of 1980, the JA3 Jury Committee has met jointly with the task force every two months and benefited from the participation of professionals from court management organizations who work every day with the jilry system and know personally the practical problems that arise. Task force members representing court management organizations incluae A1 len Tapley (Conference of State Court Administrators) , Hank T. Rodgers (National Association of Trial Court Administrators) , Donald Cul len (National Association for Court Administration) , and James D. Montgomery (National Bar Association). -7 A preliminary draft of these standards was given wide circulation among the organizations represented on the task force and JAD Jury Committee as well as by jury managers and other interested groups concerned with judicial administration. Suggestions and criticisms were solicited and given careful consideration. Many have been incorporated in this tentative draft. The JAD Committee and National Center Task Force express appreciation to a1 1 who reviewed the preliminary draft. This step in the standards development process is the review and approval of the tentative draft by the organizations participating in the development effort. With their approval and that of the Judicial Administration Division, it is anticipated that the standards will be presented to the American Bar Association, House of Delegates for adoption in January, 1983. Wa:ter J. Kane .. Table of Contents IhTROUUCTION ............................. 1 t$LACK LETTER STANDARDS ........................ 4 STARDUDS AND CONMENTARY .. Part A: Standards Relating to Selection of Prospective Jurors Introduction ................. ......14 . Standara 1: OPPORTUNITY FOR SERVICE ............ 16 Commentary .. ......... ......16 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......17 Related Standards ............... 17 Footnotes ................... 18 Bibliography ..................20 Standard 2: JURY JOURCE LIST ................23 \ Commentary ...................23 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......27 Helatea Standards ............... 2% Footnotes ................... 2% Bibliography ..................30 Standara 3: RANDOM SELECTION PROCEDURES .......... 36 Commentary ................... 36 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......38 Relatea Standards ............... 38 Footnotes ................... 39 Bibliography ...................41 Standara 4: ELIGIBILITY FOR JURY SERVICE ..........47 Commentary ...................47 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......50 Related Standards ............... 50 Footnotes ................... 50 Bibliography ..... .......0.. .e m53 Standard 5: TERM OF AND AVAILABILITY FOR SERVICE ......55 Conmentary ...................55 Suggested Steps for Implementation .......57 Related Standards ............... 58 Footnotes ................... 58 Bibliography ..................59 Standard 6: EXEMPTION. EXCUSE. AND DEFERRAL ........ 60
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Educating Artists
    DUKE LAW MAGAZINE MAGAZINE LAW DUKE Fall 2006 | Volume 24 Number 2 F all 2006 Educating Artists V olume 24 Number 2 Also: Duke Faculty on the Hill From the Dean Dear Alumni and Friends, University’s Algernon Sydney Sullivan Medal, awarded annually for outstanding commitment to service. This summer, four Duke law faculty members were Graduates Candace Carroll ’74 and Len Simon ’73 called to testify before Congressional committees. have used their talents and resources in support Professor Neil Vidmar appeared before the Senate of civil liberties, women’s rights, and public inter- Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, est causes; their recent leadership gift to Duke’s to address legislation on medical malpractice suits. Financial Aid Initiative helps Duke continue to attract Professor Madeline Morris testified before the Senate the best students, regardless of their ability to pay, Foreign Relations Committee regarding ratification of and gives them greater flexibility to pursue public the U.S.–U.K. extradition treaty. Professor James Cox interest careers. Other alumni profiled in this issue offered his views on proposed reforms for the conduct who are using their Duke Law education to make a of securities class action litigation to the House difference include Judge Curtis Collier ’74, Chris Kay Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee ’78, Michael Dockterman ’78, Andrea Nelson Meigs on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government ’94, and Judge Gerald Tjoflat ’57. Sponsored Enterprises. Professor Scott Silliman, I want to thank all alumni, friends, and faculty executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and who contributed so generously to the Law School in National Security, was on Capitol Hill three times in the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Michigan Law Review Volume 117 Issue 1 2018 Front Matter Michigan Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Recommended Citation Michigan Law Review, Front Matter, 117 MICH. L. REV. i (2018). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol117/iss1/1 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Michigan Law Review Vol. 117, No. 1 October 2018 CONTENTS ARTICLES State Action and the Constitution’s Middle Band ......... Louis Michael Seidman 1 Change, Creation, and Unpredictability in Statutory Interpretation: Interpretive Canon Use in the Roberts Court’s First Decade .............................Nina A. Mendelson 71 NOTES Renovations Needed: The FDA’s Floor/Ceiling Framework, Preemption, and the Opioid Epidemic .................Michael R. Abrams 143 Cabining Judicial Discretion over Forensic Evidence with a New Special Relevance Rule .............Emma F.E. Shoucair 173 Except where otherwise expressly provided, the author of each Article, Essay, and Note in this issue has granted permission for copies of that Article, Essay, or Note to be made for educational use, provided that (i) copies are distributed at or below cost; (ii) copies identify the author, the Michigan Law Review, the volume, the number of the first page, and the year of the publication; and (iii) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy, attributing copyright to the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Earl Warren, the "Warren Court," and the Warren Myths
    Michigan Law Review Volume 67 Issue 2 1968 Earl Warren, the "Warren Court," and the Warren Myths Philip B. Kurland University of Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Judges Commons, Legal Biography Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Philip B. Kurland, Earl Warren, the "Warren Court," and the Warren Myths, 67 MICH. L. REV. 353 (1968). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol67/iss2/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EARL WARREN, THE "WARREN COURT," AND THE WARREN MYTHS Philip B. Kurland* Stt" is not enough for the knight of romance," Justice Holmes once reminded us, "that you agree that his lady is a very nice girl-if you do not admit that she is the best that God ever made or will make, you must fight."' So, too, with the admirers of the Chief Justice and their "fair lady." For the moment, Earl Warren is enjoy- ing the lavish praise that is not uncommonly ladled out when a man voluntarily decides to end a long and important government career. The contents of this issue of the MichiganLaw Review may be taken as representative of the prevalent attitude, especially in the law school world, about the greatness of Chief Justice Warren.
    [Show full text]
  • SEAN W. GALLAGHER PARTNER ━ 54 West Hubbard Street, Chicago, IL 60654 | 312.494.4428 | [email protected]
    SEAN W. GALLAGHER PARTNER ━ 54 West Hubbard Street, Chicago, IL 60654 | 312.494.4428 | [email protected] Sean Gallagher is an accomplished trial lawyer with experience across a broad range of complex commercial litigation matters. The majority of Sean's representations have been for major U.S. and international companies in cases involving intellectual property (including patent infringement and Lanham Act claims), trade secret misappropriation, product liability, accountant liability, toxic tort, and breach of contract. Sean has also worked on a variety of other matters ranging from Gore v. Bush, where Sean was part of the Bartlit Beck team that represented President Bush at the trial court level, to Newsome v. McCabe, where Sean helped obtain compensation for a man wrongfully convicted of murder. Sean is a nationally recognized attorney. He is Chambers ranked and listed as a "Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation. Chambers and Partners noted his "expertise handling large class actions, including those with product liability and breach of fiduciary aspects" and quoted sources calling him an "effective courtroom advocate and strategist" and describing his lawyering as "measured, focused and persuasive." Sean joined the firm in 1996 directly from a clerkship for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the Supreme Court of the United States, before which he served as law clerk to Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. EDUCATION & HONORS University of Michigan Law School, 1994, J.D., magna cum laude Articles Editor, Michigan Law Review University of Michigan, 1990, B.A., with Highest Distinction CLERKSHIPS Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court, 1995-1996 Honorable Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1994-1995 AWARDS & RECOGNITION Ranked by Chambers USA as one of the leading litigators in Illinois.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Origins, Founding, and Early Development of Student-Edited Law Reviews, 36 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 36 | Issue 5 Article 2 1-1985 The iH storical Origins, Founding, and Early Development of Student-Edited Law Reviews Michael L. Swygert Jon W. Bruce Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael L. Swygert and Jon W. Bruce, The Historical Origins, Founding, and Early Development of Student-Edited Law Reviews, 36 Hastings L.J. 739 (1985). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol36/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Historical Origins, Founding, and Early Development of Student-Edited Law Reviewst By MICHAEL I. SWYGERT* AND JON W. BRUCE** If we fail, we shall at least have the satisfaction of believing that our work has been honestly done in the interest of the law school and of its alumni.I The American law review properly has been called the most remarka- ble institution of the law school world. To a lawyer, its articles and comments may be indispensable professional tools. To a judge, ... the review may be both a severe critic and a helpful guide. But per- haps most important, the review affords invaluable training to the stu- dents .... 2 Most accredited law schools in the United States publish a student- edited law review containing scholarly writing about recent court deci- sions, unresolved issues of law, and other topics of interest to the legal community.3 Begun a century ago by law students as an academic exper- iment,4 law reviews have achieved a prominent and influential position in the legal profession.5 Much has been written both praising6 and criticiz- " © Copyright 1985 by Michael I.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Michigan Law Review Volume 114 Issue 8 2016 Front Matter Michigan Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michigan Law Review, Front Matter, 114 MICH. L. REV. (2016). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol114/iss8/5 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MICHIGAN. LAW REVIEW Vol. 114, No. 8 June 2016 CONTENTS ARTICLES THIN RATIONALITY REVIEW ..... Jacob Gersen & Adrian Vermeule 1355 THE SUPREME ASSIMILATION OF PATENT LAW .......... Peter Lee 1413 NOTES A DAY IN COURT FOR DATA BREACH PLAINTIFFS: PRESERVING STANDING BASED ON INCREASED RISK OF IDENTITY THEFT AFTER CLAPPER V AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA... Thomas Martecchini 1471 IMPROVING PATENT QUALITY THROUGH POST-GRANT CLAIM AMENDMENTS: A COMPARISON OF EUROPEAN OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS AND U.S. POST-GRANT PROCEEDINGS ............. Jennifer R. Turchyn 1497 Except where otherwise expressly provided, the author of each Article, Essay, and Note in this issue has granted permission for copies of that Article, Essay, or Note to be made for educational use, provided that (i) copies are distributed at or below cost; (ii) the author and the Michigan Law Review are identified; (iii) prior written notice of the use is given to the Michigan Law Review Association; and (iv) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy, attributing copyright to the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Michigan Law Review Volume 111 Issue 5 2013 Front Matter Michigan Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michigan Law Review, Front Matter, 111 MICH. L. REV. (2013). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol111/iss5/6 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Michigan Law Review Vol. 111, No. 5 March 2013 CONTENTS TRIBUTE TRIBUTE TO LARRY RIBSTEIN .................... Barry E. Adler ARTICLES PREEMPTION AND CHOICE-OF-LAW COORDINATION ...................... Erin O'HaraO'Connor Larry E. Ribstein 647 LEGAL ENTITIES AS TRANSFERABLE BUNDLES OF CONTRACTS .................. ... Kenneth Ayotte Henry Hansmann 715 NOTES POLICEMAN, CITIZEN, OR BOTH? A CIVILIAN ANALOGUE EXCEPTION TO GARCETTI V. CEBALLOS ...................... CarolineA. Flynn 759 STOP BEING EVIL: A PROPOSAL FOR UNBIASED GOOGLE SEARCH... Joshua G. Hazan 789 Except where otherwise expressly provided, the author of each Article, Essay, and Note in this issue has granted permission for copies of that Article, Essay, or Note to be made for educational use, provided that (i) copies are distributed at or below cost; (ii) the author and the Michigan Law Review are identified; (iii) prior written notice of the use is given to the Michigan Law Review Association; and (iv) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy, attributing copyright to the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Expression and the Information Society: a Legal Analysis Toward a Libertarian Framework for Libel
    FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE INFORMATION SOCIETY: A LEGAL ANALYSIS TOWARD A LIBERTARIAN FRAMEWORK FOR LIBEL DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Nikhil Moro, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2006 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Prabu David, Advisor Professor Elliot Slotnick Professor David Goldberger ________________________ Professor Sharon West Advisor Professor Young Mie Kim Graduate Program in Communication ABSTRACT Web blogs, as alternate sources of political opinion and analysis, have enabled new voices that can empower netizens and democratize information access. Their larger social contribution may be that they increase manifold the ideas available in the marketplace, in theory challenging any information hegemony of an increasingly consolidating corporate media. Bloggers, citizen journalists and others of the fifth estate have joined the social conversation by acting as watchdogs of not just government but also of the corporate media. Libel law, as a determinant of freedom of expression, also defines the democratic values of individual self-fulfillment, marketplace of ideas, and empowerment. Libel lawsuits, however, impose a chilling effect, a chill which is exacerbated for the fifth estate by the challenge of multiple personal jurisdictions – a netizen can be hauled before a court whose location, laws and procedures are hard to predict. The dissertation addresses that express challenge by proposing a separate common jurisdiction for libel cases that emanate in the information society. Specifically, it delineates a normative, inductive, theoretical framework for that common jurisdiction after analyzing the fundamental principles of freedom of expression characterizing jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Michigan Law Review Volume 118 Issue 4 2020 Front Matter Michigan Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Recommended Citation Michigan Law Review, Front Matter, 118 MICH. L. REV. i (2020). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol118/iss4/1 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Michigan Law Review Vol. 118, No. 4 February 2020 CONTENTS ARTICLES “Downright Indifference”: Examining Unpublished Decisions in the Federal Courts of Appeals........Merritt E. McAlister 533 The Essential Roles of Agency Law .......Gabriel Rauterberg 609 NOTES A Suspended Death Sentence: Habeas Review of Expedited Removal Decisions............Lauren Schusterman 655 The Municipal Pardon Power ..............Hayato Watanabe 687 Except where otherwise expressly provided, the author of each Article, Essay, and Note in this issue has granted permission for copies of that Article, Essay, or Note to be made for educational use, provided that (i) copies are distributed at or below cost; (ii) copies identify the author, the Michigan Law Review, the volume, the number of the first page, and the year of the publication; and (iii) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy, attributing copyright to the author. Michigan Law Review (ISSN 0026-2234) is published in October, November, December, February, March, April, May, and June.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Banking As a Potential Solution to the Marijuana-Banking Problem
    NOTE Underbanked: Cooperative Banking as a Potential Solution to the Marijuana-Banking Problem Patrick A. Tighe* Numerous states have recently legalized recreational marijuana, which has created a burgeoning marijuana industry needing and demanding access to a variety of banking and financial services. Due, however, to the interplay between the federal criminalization of marijuana and federal anti-money laundering laws, U.S. financial institutions cannot handle legally the proceeds from marijuana activity. As a result, most financial institutions are unwilling to flout federal anti-money laundering laws, and so too few marijuana-related businesses can access banking services. This Note argues that the most viable policy option for resolving this “underbanking” problem is a financial cooper- ative approach such as a cannabis-only financial cooperative. Even in light of federal anti-money laundering laws, this Note contends that the Federal Re- serve is legally authorized to grant some cannabis-only financial cooperatives access to its payment system services under the Monetary Control Act of 1980. Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................... 804 I. The Failure of Federal Efforts to Remedy the Underbanking Problem ...................................806 A. A Robust and Growing Marijuana Industry . 806 B. Federal Law Has Created the Underbanking Problem . 807 C. Federal Regulators Have Not Resolved the Problem . 812 II. Current Policy Proposals Miss the Mark. 816 A. Instituting a Cooperative Federalism Approach . 816 B. Amending the CSA ......................................819 C. Using Decentralized Virtual Currency . 822 III. Financial Cooperatives Provide a Viable Path Forward ...................................................825 A. The Financial Cooperative Approach . 826 B. The Federal Reserve’s Legal Authorization . 828 1. Interpretation of the Monetary Control Act of 1980 .
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court in Politics
    Michigan Law Review Volume 88 Issue 6 1990 The Supreme Court in Politics Terrance Sandalow University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Terrance Sandalow, The Supreme Court in Politics, 88 MICH. L. REV. 1300 (1990). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol88/iss6/3 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SUPREME COURT IN POLITICS Terrance Sanda/ow* BATILE FOR JUSTICE: How THE BORK NOMINATION SHOOK AMERICA. By Ethan Bronner. New York: W.W. Norton. 1989. Pp. 12, 399. $22.50. Despite all that has been written about the bitter struggle initiated by President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to a seat on the Supreme· court, its most remarkable feature, that it was waged over a judicial appointment, has drawn relatively little comment. Two hun­ dred years after the Philadelphia Convention, Hamilton's "least dan­ gerous" branch - least dangerous because it would have "no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever"1-had come to occupy so important a place in the nation's political life that the question of its future course was capable of gener­ ating a controversy more intense and more divisive than all but a very few contests for political office.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tragedy of Justice Scalia, 115 Mich
    Michigan Law Review Volume 115 | Issue 6 2017 The rT agedy of Justice Scalia Mitchell N. Berman University of Pennsylvania Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Mitchell N. Berman, The Tragedy of Justice Scalia, 115 Mich. L. Rev. 783 (2017). Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol115/iss6/3 This Classic Revisited is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRAGEDY OF JUSTICE SCALIA Mitchell N. Berman* A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. By Antonin Scalia. Princeton and Chichester: Princeton University Press. 1997. Pp. xiii, 149. $18.95. Introduction Justice Antonin Scalia died last February, at the age of seventy-nine. Having served nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, he was, by the time of his death, its best known and most influential member, the subject of two substantial biographies,1 hundreds of academic articles,2 and possibly thousands more in the popular press. If the most visible and vocal justice of the past quarter century, Scalia was also the most polarizing—the judicial equivalent of stinky cheese.3 Given the magnitude of Scalia’s renown and the intensity of the passions he has engendered, it would be folly to advance in this space any bold new thesis on his jurisprudence or judicial legacy.
    [Show full text]