Show simple item record

Symposium on Neglected Justices

dc.contributor.authorBrandon, Mark E.
dc.contributor.authorEly, James W., 1938-
dc.date.accessioned2013-11-13T19:01:40Z
dc.date.available2013-11-13T19:01:40Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citation62 Vand. L. Rev. 311 (2009)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/5659
dc.description.abstractGiven the legal academy's penchant for ranking, it is hardly a surprise that legal scholars have turned their attention to crafting lists of the greatest Justices of the Supreme Court. As with ratings of decisions, however, the difficulties of articulating and applyin gstandards plague scholarly efforts to rank Justices. Are there defensible criteria by which to assess judicial performance? To the extent that personal perspective colors evaluation, how might one screen for political and ideological bias on the part of the evaluators? Or is political favoritism inevitable? Another concern is whether a "presentist" bias skews ratings in a way that treats recent jurists more kindly than those of other eras? Conversely, does reverence for certain eras of the past elevate the status of some Justices? Additional problems abound.en_US
dc.format.extent1 document (9 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherVanderbilt Law Reviewen_US
dc.subject.lcshJudges -- Rating of -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshJudges -- United States -- Evaluationen_US
dc.titleSymposium on Neglected Justicesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record