Write my article for me?
Bradley P Jacob
bradjac at REGENT.EDU
Mon Jan 21 11:06:15 PST 2002
It seems too obvious even to mention -- and Mike is not fool enough to let
me write his article -- but Planned Parenthood v. Casey is, of course, the
clear champion in both these phenomena. O'Connor's joint opinion comes
awfully close to acknowledging that Roe was wrongly decided, but manages to
affirm its "essential holding" because failure to do so might damage the
Court's aura of omniscience. Scalia's dissent does a good job of pointing
out the "imperial judiciary" problem.
Professor Bradley P. Jacob
Regent University School of Law
1000 Regent University Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-9800
Email bradjac at regent.edu
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Michael S Paulsen
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 8:36 PM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Write my article for me?
Dear friends on Conlawprof list:
I'm seeking opinions/ nominations on two points related to an essay
I was supposed to have written by now:
1. In the last ten years or so, has the resolution of any Supreme
Court case (constitutional or statutory) turned almost exclusively, or
heavily, on stare decisis, really? Are there any significant cases
where precedent has genuinely been a significant factor? (Are
there any where the Court *purports* to use it as a factor but
precedent seems more-or-less irrelevant?)
2. Same time period: Is there evidence that the Court has been
increasingly "judicial supremacist", or more "arrogant" than before?
I am not sure what counts as evidence of this, but I am thinking
along the lines of overt declarations of the Court's own supremacy,
implicit condescension that anyone might dare to question their
decisions, etc, cavalier dismissal of the views of other branches,
etc. etc. (Is there any connection between such an attitude and
adherence to precedent? Between such an attitude and too-easy
disregard of precedent?)
I have my own nominations and ideas, but I want to see what others
think and if you all have some better examples. Anyone think the
Court has been *more* deferential to others' views than it once was?
Answer on-list or off. (I think some of the answers might be of
Thanks for your help.
Michael Stokes Paulsen
University of Minnesota Law School
More information about the Conlawprof