scholarly journals “Notorious RBG”: A conversation with United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1090-1108
Author(s):  
Ruth Rubio-Marín
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Gender Justice ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court Justice ◽  
European University ◽  
The U.S

Abstract On February 2, 2016, Prof. Ruth Rubio-Marín, Chair of Constitutional and Comparative Public Law at the European University Institute (EUI), interviewed the U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The interview took place in the framework of the European University Institute’s annual Ursula Hirschmann Lecture, a space dedicated to stimulate research and thinking which links ideas about Europe and the study of gender. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg engaged in a conversation that tackled her whole persona, without making rigid divides between the professional and the personal. Deep legal analysis, personal anecdotes, and invaluable advice for future researchers and lawyers intertwine in the interview, which sheds light on important dimensions of equality law.

Reconstructing the Federal Judiciary: The Chase Impeachment and the Constitution

1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith E. Whittington
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Supreme Court Justice ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Final Article

Only the United States supreme court justice has ever been impeached. In January 1804, the House of Representatives began a formal inquiry into the official conduct of Associate Justice Samuel Chase and approved eight articles of impeachment in November of that same year. The Senate held a trial of the justice in February 1805, which concluded with his acquittal on March 1. On the final article of impeachment, Chase escaped removal by four votes.

Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 1109-1127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Caldeira ◽  
John R. Wright
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Organized Interests ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Selection Of

Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on certiorari and assess their impact on the Court's selection of a plenary docket. We hypothesize that one or more briefs advocating or opposing certiorari increase the likelihood of its being granted. We test this hypothesis using data from the United States Reports and Briefs and Records of the United States Supreme Court for the 1982 term. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the presence of amicus curiae briefs filed prior to the decision on certiorari significantly and positively increases the chances of the justices' binding of a case over for full treatment—even after we take into account the full array of variables other scholars have hypothesized or shown to be substantial influences on the decision to grant or deny.

Marketing and the United States Supreme Court, 1975–1981

1982 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-81
Author(s):  
Ray O. Werner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Enterprise System ◽  
Legal Environment ◽  
The Past ◽  
Marketing Operations ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Supreme Court conditions the legal environment of marketing, and over the past six years, its decisions have both limited and expanded the constraints on marketers. Constraints have been imposed on marketing operations, particularly pricing and channels of distribution, on marketing organizations, and on the relevant regulatory procedures. Indications are that future changes may be imminent, particularly in allowing greater marketing autonomy within a private enterprise system.

scholarly journals Jacob v Shultz-Jacob, 923 A 2d 473, 2007 Pa Super Lexis 957 (Pa Super 2007)

2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-210
Author(s):  
Robert E Rains
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Parental Rights ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Supreme Court Justice ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Normal Number ◽  
The Law

THREE PARENTS?United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once famously opined that, “. . . law, like nature itself, makes no provision for dual fatherhood.”  Of course, we know that many children today are being raised in households where their primary paternal figure is a stepfather, and their natural father, who is their legal father, may or may not exercise some quantum of visitation/access.2  Moreover, many American jurisdictions today allow same-sex couples to adopt, so that a child has either two mothers or two fathers.3  But the situation which Justice Scalia was addressing involved a child whose mother was married at the time of conception, who apparently was the product of her mother’s affair with another man, and where the mother’s husband had forgiven all and accepted the child as his own.4  Justice Scalia could not imagine that the law, or nature, would permit a child to have three parents, in that case a mother and two fathers.  Indeed, in the typical same-sex adoption case, either there is no known father because one of the lesbian partners was inseminated by an anonymous donor,5 or a known donor has agreed to terminate his parental rights.6  In either of those scenarios, a child ends up with the normal number of parents:  two.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 888-895
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Peter J. Spiro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 126 S.Ct. 2749.United States Supreme Court, June 29, 2006.In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the military commissions established by President George W. Bush were unauthorized by law and inconsistent with both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Rejecting jurisdictional challenges to its resolving the legality of the tribunals, the Court found the military commission proceedings against Hamdan to violate the “uniformity” requirement of the UCMJ, under which military commissions must be governed by the same standards as courtsmartial except where impracticable. The Court also found the tribunals to violate the Geneva Conventions as incorporated by Article 21 of the UCMJ, because the commissions did not qualify as “regularly constituted courts” as required under Common Article 3.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document