Saturday, March 9, 2019

“The Least Dangerous Branch”

The Politicization of the Judicial Branch in the U.S. and Germany
By Suzanne Foote
Suzanne Foote is a third year law student at Albany Law School, she holds a B.S. in History from The College at Brockport, SUNY, with a dual minor in Environmental Studies and Political Science. While attending Albany Law School she has interned with the Honorable Pater W. Hall of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Counsel’s Office and serves as the Executive Managing Editor for the Albany Law Review, Volume 82. Upon graduating in May, 2019, she will be serving as an Assistant Court Attorney for the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Suzanne’s paper was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s Supreme Court Seminar in the Fall of 2018.

Though they may have a judicial branch, constitutional democracies differ significantly in the ways these branches operate and the powers that may be exerted.  Judicial institutions, no matter the setup, are not free of political pressures.Yet, they may be less partisan than we see through the United States Supreme Court.

The judicial branch will undoubtedly always be political in nature because of the importance of the issues these courts decide—specifically, the individual rights of citizens under the governing constitutions. To examine the political pressures faced by judicial systems, this essay will examine the United States Supreme Court as compared to the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (“German Constitutional Court”).

The United States Supreme Court serves as a representative of a court vested with the right to review the actions of other branches of an otherwise co-equal government and to determine the constitutionality of their actions,. It also possesses other broad powers to decide non-Constitutional issues as the federal government’s “court of last resort.”

By contrast, while the German Constitutional Court represents a separate judicial body, which has been granted the power to decide upon constitutional issues, the court is limited to only these constitutional issues. By examining the similarities and differences of these two bodies, it can be concluded that despite the differences, both types of judiciaries are subject to political pressure and politicization due to role the judicial body plays in the federal government of each country.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Sunday, February 24, 2019

The Chief Justices’ Marriage to Stare Decisis

An Analysis of Burger’s, Rehnquist’s, and Roberts’ Relationship with Precedent

By Kieran T. Murphy
Kieran Murphy, a second year student at Albany Law School, is a member of the Albany Law Review, an associate member of the Anthony V. Cardona '70 Moot Court Board, a Dean Thomas Sponsler honors teaching fellow, and President of the Class of 2020.
Kieran has served as a judicial extern both to the Hon. Thomas J. McAvoy at the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and to the Hon. Judge John C. Egan, Jr. at the NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. He has received multiple moot court awards, including the Hon. Judith S. Kaye Advocate Award from the New York State Bar Association.
Prior to attending law school, Kieran earned degrees in Integrative Neuroscience and Economics from Binghamton University, graduating in 2017. This summer, Kieran will be at the law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP in Manhattan as a summer associate. This paper was prepared for Prof. Bonventre's Supreme Court Seminar in the fall of 2018.

“I don’t get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents I get to follow . . . I follow them all.”   During his controversial nomination process, now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh sat directly in the lap of stare decisis while answering Senate Judiciary Committee questions—a fallback that has become commonplace for recent judicial nominees.

For decades, Supreme Court Justices have relied on stare decisis to skirt difficult questions concerning personal or political views on case law, as well as to maintain a neutral image of balance at the judiciary.   What becomes most important, however, is not how precedent is used as a talking point during the confirmation process, but how the doctrine plays out on the Court after a certain Justice has been confirmed.

The stare decisis doctrine has monitored the Court for hundreds of years, dating back to eighteenth century English common law. Stare decisis et non quieta moevre, translated to mean “to stand by matters that have been decided and not to disturb what is tranquil” is the idea that, in order to maintain uniformity among changing courts, prior decisions must stand as final word. While clear in translation, most courts have maintained that, while stare decisis is a vital element of judicial decision making, it “is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula to the adherence to the latest decision.” As such, interpretations of the doctrine at the federal level have been severely scattered due to its inherent flexibility.

The dichotomy that exists between the importance of the Supreme Court’s marriage to precedent and the obvious, fast-changing social policies of the 20th and 21st centuries is an interesting one. While the Court’s foundational philosophy revolves around a need to maintain stability in decision making, the fast-changing social construct of today’s world makes doing so nearly impossible in certain situations. The implementation of stare decisis in the Justices' chambers as a result of this ongoing social pressure is much more important than their pre-written speeches on Capitol Hill. As such, this paper will focus on the doctrine’s evolution as it relates to three separate, recent eras of  the Supreme Court: (1) the Burger Court, (2) the Rehnquist Court, and (3) the current Roberts Court.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Monday, February 18, 2019

Judge Cooke: The Man and His Impact on the Law

By Anthony Sokolowski
Anthony Sokolowski, a third year student at Albany Law School, is the Editor-in-Chief of the Center for Judicial Process. He graduated from Utica College in 2016 with a bachelors in political science and minor in philosophy.  In addition to serving as EIC of the Center, Anthony is also the Executive Editor of Albany Law's Government Law Review and the Treasurer of the Italian American Law Society. Upon graduation, Anthony will be working as an Assistant Distract Attorney at the Oneida County District Attorney's Office.


Lawrence Henry Cooke has been described as “a giant . . . [i]n every good and important way.” For a man who began his work days at four in the morning, it cannot be overstated how impressive his impact on the law, not only on the subject matter he covered, but also on the people he encountered along the way.

This paper examines the Judge’s rise to the court, his key decisions as an associate judge and how they impacted they law as well as his decisions as Chief Judge and their impact on the law. The impact will focus mostly on the impact his opinions had on the criminal law field. Lastly, this work concludes with a discussion on his impact on the people he worked with and concluding remarks.

Born in Monticello, New York, Judge Cooke was heavily influenced by his father, George, who as a graduate of Albany Law School, was elected Sullivan County District Attorney in 1909. George Cooke made the transition from attorney to judge when he was elected to County Judge of the Surrogate and Children’s Court in 1926, a position he would spend the next twenty-two years working. Judge Cooke would learn from his father a lesson he would continue to share throughout his career, “when in doubt, always take the high road.”

Judge Cooke originally attended Harvard Law School before transferring to Albany Law School to obtain his law degree. He began his practice at the law office of John Lyons. While in private practice, he also worked as a volunteer fireman, was elected as Supervisor of the Town of Thompson and even filled his father shoes by becoming elected to the County Judge of Surrogate and Children’s Court in 1959. This ultimately led to his becoming elected to the Justice of the Supreme Court in the Third Department of New York in 1961, which then led to a cross party nomination by then Governor Nelson Rockefeller in 1968 to New York State’s Appellate Division, Third Department.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Saturday, February 2, 2019

Cuthbert W. Pound: An Advocate Through Dissent and Debate

By Allison Bartlett
Allison Bartlett earned her J.D. from Albany Law School summa cum laude and a B.A. in Art History from Vassar College.  Currently, she is an associate at Harter Secrest & Emery in the environmental land use and zoning practice group.
At Albany Law School, Allison was both a teaching assistant and research assistant, and served on the executive board for Albany Law Review, vol. 81, and the Women’s Law Caucus.  She also interned with the Honorable Mae A. D’Agostino, Northern District of New York, and the Honorable Peter A. Lynch, Albany County Court. 
Allison’s paper was prepared for Professor Bonventre’s Court of Appeals Seminar, Spring 2018.


Throughout his legal career, Judge Cuthbert Winfred Pound advanced protections for unprotected classes through his precise use of language and unwavering application of the law.

Cuthbert Pound graduated from Cornell University and began his legal career working alongside his older brother. He was admitted to the bar in 1886 when he was twenty-two. Before beginning his judicial career, Pound served as a State Senator from 1894-1895, where he demonstrated his progressive nature by sponsoring an initiative to provide voting rights to women. He then served as Lockport City Attorney, member and chairman of the state civil service commission, and law professor at Cornell Law School. He also served as counsel to Governor Frank Higgins, who later appointed him to the trial bench, as a State Supreme Court Justice.

In 1915, Pound received a temporary appointment to fill a vacancy on the Court of Appeals and then won election to that Court the following year. He served on New York's high court for nearly twenty years. That included a brief tenure as Chief Judge, a position to which he was initially appointed by Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt to succeed Benjamin Cardozo, from 1932 until his mandatory age retirement in 1934.

While remembered for being a liberal judge, he was elected to both the trial bench and the position of Chief Judge “without controversy by the joint action” of both the Republican and Democratic parties. He is most recognized for his decisions regarding economic regulation and freedom of speech, and of course, for having served on the Court at the same time as Benjamin Cardozo, who referred to him as “a great figure in the judicial history of New York.”
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Scrooge v. Robin Hood: A Tale of Two Justices

James McReynolds and Louis Brandeis

By Emma Tiner
Emma Tiner, a 2018 summa cum laude graduate of Albany Law School, served as Editor-in-Chief of the Albany Law Review.  Prior to law school, Emma received her BS in communications, summa cum laude, at SUNY Cobleskill. She is currently clerking with Judge Richard K. Eaton at the United States Court of International Trade for the 2018-2020 term.



“That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected.”  These words, attributed to Justice James McReynolds in his opinion for the Court in the case Meyer v. Nebraska, laid the groundwork for protections that would have far-reaching effects in Supreme Court jurisprudence. In both Meyer and Pierce v. Society of Sisters,  McReynolds assisted in establishing important protections beyond the vagaries of the Fourteenth Amendment, identifying crucial rights that existed independent of specific Constitutional language.  These protections contributed to the evolution of the body of law known as substantive due process.

Yet, despite these two landmarks—discussed in more detail below—James Clark McReynolds is not remembered for this vigorous application of Constitutional protections. Instead, he is remembered for his unwavering vitriol and bigotry against those who differed from him—and against one justice in particular. Louis Brandeis shared the entirety of his time on the Court with James McReynolds. But he, not McReynolds, would be classed as one of the “greats.”  Although both justices were appointed by President Woodrow Wilson, an enmity existed between them because of Brandeis’ Judaism.  The conflict between these two justices—one glorious, one infamous—illustrates the contribution that a judge’s personal reputation makes to the legacy and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

The Boomer Decision and Court Calculations

The NY Court of Appeals' Economic Approach to Solving a Social Problem 

By Benjamin Goes

Benjamin Goes graduated from Albany Law School, magna cum laude, in December 2018.  He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from SUNY Albany.  Ben currently serves on the Guilderland Board of Education and is involved in various educational reform movements.


Since the publication of Ronald Coase’s The Problem of Social Cost and the concomitant development and popularization of the field of law and economics, courts and legislatures have been encouraged to consider the principles of economic theory in the course of their decision-making.  This seems entirely proper.

Economics is a science for studying the condition and activity of human life. And law is a normative institution attempting to maintain and improve the condition of human life. However, attempts to employ economic concepts without truly understanding them, or employing them narrowly, can be a dangerous practice, leading to decisions which are sound from neither a traditionally legal nor an economic aspect.

One particularly striking example of a court embracing a seemingly economic approach to solving a social problem is the New York Court of Appeals’ 1970 decision in Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.  

In this case, plaintiff landowners sought an injunction to prevent defendant cement factory from continuing to damage their property by its emittance of smoke, dust, and vibrations. The lower courts found that the defendant’s operations did constitute a nuisance to plaintiff’s property. But those courts denied plaintiffs an injunction due to the “large economic disparity in economic consequences of the nuisance and the injunction.” Instead, the courts simply ordered the payment of temporary damages.

The Court of Appeals reversed. New York's high court did so in accordance with the long-established state rule that whenever the damage resulting from a nuisance is found to be “not insubstantial,” an injunction would be granted.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

Center Staff for the 2018 - 2019 Academic Year

Director
Vincent Martin Bonventre


Editor-in-Chief
Anthony Sokolowski is a current third year student at Albany Law School anticipating graduation in May of 2019.  Anthony graduated from Utica College in 2016 with a bachelors in political science and minor in philosophy.  In addition to serving as the Editor in Chief of the Center for Judicial Process Blog, he is also the Executive Editor of Albany Law's Government Law Review as well as Treasurer of the Italian American Law Society. Upon graduation, Anthony will be accepting a position as an Assistant Distract Attorney at The Oneida County District Attorney's Office. 



Executive Editor
Nicholas Marricco is a 3rd year student at Albany Law School. In 2016, Nicholas graduated cum laude from the University at Albany, SUNY with a BA in European History. In the summer of 2017 Nicholas interned for the Honorable Raymond Rodriguez of the Richmond County Criminal Court through the Sonia and Celina Sotomayor Judicial Internship Program. Nicholas has also interned for the Schenectady County District Attorney’s Office Special Victims Bureau, Albany County District Attorney’s Office Major Offenses Bureau, and the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office Gangs and Narcotics Bureau. Nicholas is the President of the Albany Law School Italian American Law Student Association, Vice Justice of Phi Alpha Delta, and an Article Editor for the Government Law Review. Nicholas wrote his note on government regulation of Armed Protests under the 1st and 2nd Amendment. When Nicholas graduates in May 2019, he will serve as an Assistant District Attorney for the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office.
_______________________________________


2017 - 2018 Student Editorial Board
Editor-in-Chief (Fall Semester 2017)
Wesley Rene, a third-year student at Albany Law School, graduated from the University of Syracuse in 2013 with a Bachelor of Science in both Finance and Marketing.

Wesley is currently an associate editor of the Albany Law Review and enrolled in New York’s Pro Bono Scholar Program.  He has also served as a Teaching Assistant, interned with Ayco, a Goldman Sachs Company and worked in the Immigration Law Clinic at the Albany Law Clinic and Justice Center during his time at Albany Law.  Upon graduation, Wesley will be working as an associate for Harris Beach PLLC.

Executive Editor / Editor-in-Chief (Spring Semester 2018)
Erin Kilmer is a student at Albany Law School and Albany Medical College in Albany, NY where she is anticipated to earn a JD and an MS in bioethics in May 2018. She graduated magna cum laude from Marist College in Poughkeepsie, NY in 2015 with a BA in philosophy.

At present, she is interning with Judge Kahn in the Northern District of New York. She spent summer 2017 in Vienna, Austria, interning at a law firm through a program with the New York State Bar Association. Erin is an Associate Editor at Albany Law Review and works as a research assistant for Professor Tenenbaum doing health law research.


Associate Executive Editor
Anthony Sokolowski, a current second year student at Albany Law School, holds a BA Magna Cum Laude in Political Science which he obtained from Utica College in 2016.

Anthony is currently a sub-editor for the Government Law Review Journal at Albany Law School where he is specializing his research in the issues surrounding child competency when they are defendants in murder cases. He is also a fellow of the Government Law Center which has led to internship opportunities at the Office of the Oneida County Executor. Currently, Anthony interns at the Office of the Oneida County District Attorney where he is a special assignment coordinator assisting in the litigation of crimes arising out of the Drug Enforcement, Special Victims Crimes and Murder divisions.
_______________________________________
For previous years' staffs, click HERE.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Judge Lawrence H. Cooke: A Career That Went Beyond the Bench

By Parker Niles
Parker Niles is a 2017 cum laude graduate of Albany Law School. He earned his undergraduate degree in History from Union College.
While in law school, Parker was an Executive Editor for Notes and Comments for Volume 80 of the Albany Law Review. He has also served as a teaching assistant and as a judicial extern for the Hon. Mae A. D’Agostino in the U.S. District Court for Northern New York.
Parker is currently a first-year associate at Holland & Knight in Boston.

Judge Lawrence H. Cooke’s reputation as a judge and then the Chief Judge for the New York State Court of Appeals was well earned.  He did not get a bid to the Court of Appeals on his first try in 1972,  but when he was finally elected in 1974, he was voted in by one of the highest margins ever.

Judge Cooke then went on to become one of the most respected judges to ever sit on the Court of Appeals. He was known for his work ethic, being fair and practical, caring for others, and being a proponent of state constitutional law.

Lawrence Cooke was born on October 15, 1914 in Monticello, New York.  He was born into a family with a background of working in the public sector of the law as his father, George L. Cooke, was the county judge, surrogate judge, and children’s court judge of Sullivan County for many years.

After graduating from Monticello High School, Cooke attended Georgetown University. After graduating from college, Cooke decided to follow in his father’s footsteps and attend law school.  Cooke began his law studies at Harvard Law School, but then soon transferred to his father’s alma mater, Albany Law School.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Baldest Judge on the Bench: Robert Earl of the New York Court of Appeals

Robert Earl
This paper, prepared by a student in the Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar, spring 2017, explores the background, life, and considerable impact of Judge Robert Earl who served on New York's highest court for more than 20 years in the latter half of the 19th century.

Part I explores his upbringing, education, and public service prior to his time on the court. Part II highlights his time on the court, retirement, notable decisions, and prolific writings. Part III discusses his death and impact on the court and the State of New York in general.
_____________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.