第三条全院:司法会议作为咨询巡回上诉法院

IF 5.2 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2007-05-01 DOI:10.2307/20455770
J. Scott
{"title":"第三条全院:司法会议作为咨询巡回上诉法院","authors":"J. Scott","doi":"10.2307/20455770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many judges and commentators have advocated for an Intercircuit Court of Appeals to resolve circuit splits. In recent years, the Judicial Conference of the United States has publicly endorsed one circuit's interpretation of the law over another's, as an Intercircuit Court of Appeals might, but without binding effect. This Comment calls for a reevaluation of the Judicial Conference's role in the federal judicial system. It concludes that although Conference support of legislation codifying one circuit's view over another's may enhance the efficiency and consistency of the legal system, such activity is inconsistent with judicial precepts of independence, impartiality, and nonpartisanship, and should therefore be avoided.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"389 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2007-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Article III En Banc: The Judicial Conference as an Advisory Intercircuit Court of Appeals\",\"authors\":\"J. Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/20455770\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many judges and commentators have advocated for an Intercircuit Court of Appeals to resolve circuit splits. In recent years, the Judicial Conference of the United States has publicly endorsed one circuit's interpretation of the law over another's, as an Intercircuit Court of Appeals might, but without binding effect. This Comment calls for a reevaluation of the Judicial Conference's role in the federal judicial system. It concludes that although Conference support of legislation codifying one circuit's view over another's may enhance the efficiency and consistency of the legal system, such activity is inconsistent with judicial precepts of independence, impartiality, and nonpartisanship, and should therefore be avoided.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"389 1\",\"pages\":\"6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455770\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455770","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多法官和评论员都主张建立一个巡回上诉法院来解决巡回法院的分歧。近年来,美国司法会议公开支持一个巡回法院对法律的解释,而不是另一个巡回法院的解释,就像巡回上诉法院可能做的那样,但没有约束力。本评论要求重新评价司法会议在联邦司法系统中的作用。它的结论是,虽然会议支持立法编纂一个巡回法院对另一个巡回法院的意见可能会提高法律制度的效率和一致性,但这种活动不符合独立、公正和无党派的司法原则,因此应该避免。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Article III En Banc: The Judicial Conference as an Advisory Intercircuit Court of Appeals
Many judges and commentators have advocated for an Intercircuit Court of Appeals to resolve circuit splits. In recent years, the Judicial Conference of the United States has publicly endorsed one circuit's interpretation of the law over another's, as an Intercircuit Court of Appeals might, but without binding effect. This Comment calls for a reevaluation of the Judicial Conference's role in the federal judicial system. It concludes that although Conference support of legislation codifying one circuit's view over another's may enhance the efficiency and consistency of the legal system, such activity is inconsistent with judicial precepts of independence, impartiality, and nonpartisanship, and should therefore be avoided.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Yale Law Journal Online is the online companion to The Yale Law Journal. It replaces The Pocket Part, which was the first such companion to be published by a leading law review. YLJ Online will continue The Pocket Part"s mission of augmenting the scholarship printed in The Yale Law Journal by providing original Essays, legal commentaries, responses to articles printed in the Journal, podcast and iTunes University recordings of various pieces, and other works by both established and emerging academics and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Abolitionist Prison Litigation How to Save the Supreme Court Prosecuting Corporate Crime When Firms Are Too Big to Jail: Investigation, Deterrence, and Judicial Review The Statutory Separation of Powers A Cooperative Federalism Approach to Shareholder Arbitration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1