Search for: "Barry Friedman"
Results 281 - 300
of 379
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Apr 2010, 10:50 am
Barry Minkow's and William Lobdell's response can be found here. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 1:33 pm
My friend and colleague Barry Friedman’s one-volume history of the Court, The Will of the People (2009), played a major role in re-invigorating this line of commentary about the Court. [read post]
4 Apr 2019, 6:00 am
The authors then turn to the evidence in Court decisions, showing that over a range of cases, particularly those in civil liberties, that Court majorities have hewed much closer to the views of elites than of the people as whole.The authors frame their thesis as a necessary corrective to claims, like that made in Barry Friedman’s The Will of the Majority, that justices generally follow popular opinion, and theirs is indeed a much more persuasive explanation of the wellsprings… [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 6:21 am
So will amicus briefs, including one from me and other federal courts scholars (Erwin Chemerinsky, Barry Friedman, Leah Litman, and Fred Smith). [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 6:57 pm
From the beginning, the DNA in this case provided powerful evidence that these three men are innocent,” said Susan Friedman, one of Ian’s Innocence Project attorneys. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 9:51 pm
Many thanks to Professor Barry Friedman for willing the people to attend my talk at the NYU School of Law on Monday, September 9. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 7:18 am
Following up on Barry Friedman's recent recent plug at ACSblog for his new book on public opinion and the Supreme Court, The Will of the People, Gerard Magliocca offers his own reflections on the book at Concurring Opinions. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 7:05 am
Barry Friedman noted that the decision’s timing was “inauspicious as a public relations move,” coming just as “the public generally is up in arms about financial matters, corporations, money in politics, and the like. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 6:18 pm
But as numerous political scientists have observed, and as Barry Friedman's The Will of the People documents at length, when the gap between the Court and the country widens too far, the people will tend to rein in the Court. [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 1:05 am
" It will be moderated by Barry Friedman, from the U.S. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 11:58 am
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Barry Friedman contends that in an age of lives lived online, Jones “may turn the Fourth Amendment into a ticking time bomb, set to self-destruct – and soon – in the face of rapidly emerging technology. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 12:31 pm
If this isn't stealth overruling (to steal Barry Friedman's term), I'm not sure what is. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 7:44 pm
Rachel Barkow, NYU Barry Friedman, Vice Dean of NYU Panel: University of Southern California Gould School of Law, Oct. 5 Audio is here. [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 6:49 am
At ACS Blog, NYU law professor Barry Friedman promotes his new book, The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution, which contends that "over time, on the issues most salient, the Court’s decisions come into line with the ‘considered judgment' of the American people. [read post]
23 Nov 2007, 2:33 am
Gair to Barry F. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 6:24 am
Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick at Slate argue that, when ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, “the Supreme Court should ignore public opinion. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 6:31 am
There are those, such as Barry Friedman in his new book, who make the argument that the Court often follows or responds to public opinion on constitutional questions. [read post]
23 Nov 2007, 2:33 am
Gair to Barry F. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 8:21 am
Finally, both Matt Bodie at PrawfsBlawg and Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy dispute the article on the Roberts Court’s conservatism by Dahlia Lithwick and Barry Friedman for Slate (to which James linked in yesterday’s round-up). [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 7:37 am
Barry Friedman, Ted Ruger, Lori Ringhand, and others (including, from time to time, myself) have tried to integrate the political science findings with legal analysis, but most of us when not specifically engaged in that effort--and the vast majority of scholars who write about the work of the Supreme Court from within legal academia--continue to write and to teach as though doctrine and interpretive methodology matter a good deal more than they do. [read post]
