Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Could Connecticut Be the First to Get Serious about Shareholders Rights Post-Citizens United? (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
W. Scott Wright et al., Courting Independence: The Rise of Effective State Tax Courts and Tribunals, Tax Analysts: State Tax Notes 475 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Could the SEC Please Give Democracy a Hand? (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Double Barrel Blast from Big Sky Country: Montana Rejects Citizens United (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Susan D. Rozelle, The Story of Berry: When Hot Blood Cools, in Criminal Law Stories (Donna Coker ed., 2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli, Congress, the Constitution, and Supreme Court Recusal, 69 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1535 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Recusal is one of the most hotly contested issues currently facing the Supreme Court. Within the wide-ranging debate over the Justices’ recusal practices, however, a singular theme has emerged: Congress must do more to protect the integrity and legitimacy of the Court by regulating the Justices’ recusal practices. Herein lies the problem. Rather than solve the puzzle of Supreme Court recusal, direct congressional regulation has created an impasse between Congress and the Court over recusal that has consequences for the reputation, efficacy, and legitimacy of both branches. In a precursor to this Article, I recast the issue of Supreme Court recusal as a constitutional question and argued that direct congressional regulation of Supreme Court recusal violates the separation of powers. This Article builds on that prior work and argues that separation of powers principles are critical to understanding and alleviating the inter-branch impasse over recusal. It contends that Congress, rather than the Court, should take the lead in resolving that impasse and that the separation of powers requires Congress to use indirect constitutional mechanisms to do so. Specifically, Congress should repeal the current statutory provision directly regulating Supreme Court recusal and focus instead on more indirect constitutional tools — such as impeachment, procedural reform, judicial confirmation, appropriations, and investigation — to influence the Justices’ recusal practices. This effort to frame the recusal debate within its proper constitutional context permits a more robust and productive dialogue about both the Justices’ recusal practices as well as the broader question of the nature and dynamics of inter-branch relations in our tripartite government.
Date of Publication:
Jason Bent, An Incentive-Based Approach to Regulating Workplace Chemicals, 73 Ohio St. L.J. 1389– (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The United States’ system for regulating employee exposures to hazardous chemicals is broken. Absent regulation, the labor market fails to produce efficient levels of precaution against chemical exposures. Information asymmetries, long disease latency periods, and other characteristics of chemical exposures thwart the market’s ability to produce efficient risk/wage tradeoffs. These same characteristics permit employers and chemical manufacturers to externalize the costs of injuries caused by chemical exposures. The current U.S. regulatory system, including a combination of OSHA regulations and state workers’ compensation programs, is not correcting the labor market’s failure. The result is a level of workplace chemical exposure risk that is systematically too high, and a level of precaution that is systematically too low. The reforms proposed in the literature to date do not harness the financial incentives of the least-cost information providers and least-cost risk avoiders: chemical manufacturers and employers. This Article takes the search for a solution in a new direction by using state workers’ compensation laws to capitalize on the incentives of chemical manufacturers and employers. The Article argues that state workers’ compensation laws should be amended in two ways: (1) shift the default burden of proof on causation to the respondents, but only in cases where there is no applicable OSHA exposure limit, and (2) allow employers to include chemical manufacturers as respondents in workers’ compensation proceedings for purposes of apportioning liability. These amendments could be implemented by convening a new National Commission on State Workers’ Compensation Laws. The result would be a new push for OSHA chemical exposure limits by chemical manufacturers and employers – the entities in the best position to provide the toxicity and precaution information necessary to support OSHA regulations.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, The Impact Xat: A New Approach to Charging for Growth, 43 U. Mem. L. Rev. 35 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Peter J. Henning et al., Mastering Criminal Procedure, Volume 2: The Adjudicatory Stage (1st ed., Carolina Academic Press, 2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Kirsten K. Davis, My Legal Writing Coach™: Memos (2012/2013) (available on IPad (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.