Warning: Labeling Constitutions May Be Hazardous To Your Regime

Sherry presents information concerning the labeling of court decisions as being liberal or conservative victories. Because each case can be viewed in different aspects of liberalism and conservatism, it is more appropriate to simply recognize that there are important, non-ideological values at stake on both sides of each case

Habeas Corpus and State Sentencing Reform: A Story of Unintended Consequences

This Article tells the story of how fundamental shifts in state sentencing policy collided with fundamental shifts in federal habeas policy to produce a tangled and costly doctrinal wreck. The conventional assumption is that state prisoners seeking habeas relief allege constitutional errors in their state court convictions and sentences. But almost 20 percent of federal habeas petitions filed by noncapital state prisoners do not challenge state court judgments. They instead attack administrative actions by state prison officials or parole boards, actions taken long after the petitioner's conviction and sentencing. Challenges to these administrative decisions create serious problems for federal habeas law, which is designed to structure federal review of state court judgments and is ill suited to review administrators' actions. Courts find themselves trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes, and the confusion is particularly intolerable given the stakes for prisoners, state prison systems, and federal courts. This Article is the first to identify this significant problem, to analyze its disparate and complicated causes, and to propose a simple and rational way for Congress to respond

Don\u27t Answer That!

Forget hard cases: bad cases make bad law. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bauman, which never should have been filed in a California federal court, has the potential to make very bad law. It is a paradigmatic example of egregious forum shopping that stretches jurisdictional doctrines beyond their limits. And, like other acts of overreaching by overzealous plaintiffs’ attorneys,1 it is likely to come back to haunt not only these plaintiffs but other less manipulative plaintiffs in the future

Book Review: Gender Justice. by David L. Kirp, Mark G. Yudof, Marlene S. Franks.

Book review: Gender Justice. By David L. Kirp, Mark G. Yudof, Marlene S. Franks. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press. 1986. Pp. x, 296. Reviewed by: Suzanna Sherry

Democracy Uncaged. Book Review Of: Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It). by Sanford Levinson

Book review: Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We The People Can Correct It). By Sanford Levinson. Oxford University Press. 2006. Pp. ix + 233. Reviewed by: Suzanna Sherr

The Ghost of Liberalism Past

We the People is an ambitious book by one of our best constitutional theorists. Part one of a projected three-volume series, it aims at nothing less than a re-envisioning of American constitutional history and promises a new synthesis of law, politics, and history. Ackerman weaves an intriguing story about who we are and who we might be as a people. Unfortunately, Ackerman\u27s tale fails to inspire, because it is mired in a fictional past and envisions a utopian future. In addition, the book ultimately raises more questions than it answers because it provides inadequate criteria to identify the moments in the past that have special constitutional importance

Rights Talk: Must We Mean What We Say?

Mary Ann Glendon has written a powerful and persuasive diagnosis of the ills besetting modern American society. Unlike many other commentators, Glendon refuses to lay the blame on any single group or institution but spreads her accusations widely across society. For that reason, this book is sure to displease ideologues and fellow travelers on both the left and the right, but it is her impartial and relatively apolitical stance that gives the book its major strengths

Public Values and Private Virtue

article published in law journalProfessor Novak's article' is a much-needed breath of fresh air, because of both its historical approach and its rejection of a paradigm of pure individualism. Professor Novak eloquently reminds us that constitutional theorists of all political stripes are today both more presentist and more individualist than their predecessors. His paper is a gentle suggestion that we might do well to moderate these modern tendencies. Professor Novak's thorough historical examination persuasively debunks the myth of the early nineteenth century as the constitutional parent of the twentieth. Indeed, his paper shows us that comparing the length of a line and the weight of a rock is perhaps a more apt description of comparisons between the constitutional jurisprudence of the two centuries than it is of attempts to balance private rights and public values. Successful as it is, however, Professor Novak's article is only the first step. Moreover, like many attempts to correct prevalent misconceptions, its strength is also its weakness: In his desire to reintroduce the missing concepts of historical knowledge and common or community interests, Professor Novak unintentionally goes too far and undervalues both individualism and presentism

Democracy Uncaged. Book Review Of: Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It). by Sanford Levinson

Book review: Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We The People Can Correct It). By Sanford Levinson. Oxford University Press. 2006. Pp. ix + 233. Reviewed by: Suzanna Sherr