Saturday, September 15, 2012

Essays on Judicial Restraint

Scalia's "Originalism" and Rehnquist's "[non-]Living Constitution"

This post begins a series of essays examining the respective notions of judicial restraint, advocated by two Supreme Court Justices, Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist, in articles that have proven to be extremely influential to their devotees, and have provided a great deal of grist to commentators.

Originalism: Really the Lesser Evil?
By Laura K. Bomyea
Laura K. Bomyea, a third year student at Albany Law School, received her undergraduate degree from Bard College, where she studied philosophy and literature. Among other law school activities, she serves as Student Editor-in-Chief of the New York Environmental Lawyer. Read the Essay

Adherence to Judicial Restraint - Rehnquist vs. Scalia
By Michelle K. Mallette
Micky Mallette, a third-year student at Albany Law School, is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, where she studied law and systems engineering. Among other law school activities, she serves on the Albany Law Review as Executive Editor for State Constitutional Commentary. (Her essay will appear in the next post.) Read the Essay 

Original Sin?
Why a Prescription of Originalism as a Judicial Cure-All Falls Short of the Promised Remedy
By Benjamin P. Pomerance
Ben Pomerance, a third year student at Albany Law School, is the 2012 Edgar and Margaret Sandman Fellow for the Government Law Center. Among his other activities in law school, he serves on the Albany Law Review as Executive Editor for Symposium. (His essay will appear in the following post.) Read the Essay