Search for: "William Eskridge"
Results 161 - 180
of 207
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2023, 11:34 am
William N. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 6:22 am
Balkin’s perspective is positioned with the leanings of scholars like Mark Tushnet, , Sanford Levinson, William Eskridge, and Larry Kramer, who regard social and political movements to be important actors for “shifting the boundaries” of what are considered to be reasonable and plausible alternatives to existing inequalities. [read post]
22 Nov 2021, 5:00 am
This paen to false simplicity discusses the famous canons of statutory interpretation although, according to Professor William Eskridge, it covers less than one-third of the 187 canons Eskridge claims the Supreme Court has used in the past. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 5:30 pm
Perhaps it is that concern which underlies William Eskridge’s plea for the passive virtues. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 8:35 am
William Eskridge, by contrast, favors an equal protection-based ruling striking down Proposition 8, if the Supreme Court is to reach the merits at all, which he hopes it will not. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 5:00 am
Mitu Gulati (Duke University); Ariel Porat (University of Tel Aviv); Gerhard Wagner (University of Bonn) Cincinnati: Kathleen Bergin (South Texas) (Spring 2011) Columbia: Akhil Amar (Yale) (Fall 2010); William Eskridge, Jr. [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 6:00 am
Among contemporary theorists, William Eskridge Jr. is strongly identified with an evolving version of legal process theory. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Among contemporary theorists, William Eskridge Jr. is strongly identified with an evolving version of legal process theory. [read post]
4 Apr 2023, 4:33 am
When Yale Law Professor William Eskridge and I wrote our amicus brief in that case, we consciously targeted Justice Neil Gorsuch, aiming to show him that his textualist philosophy of interpretation demanded that result. [read post]
13 Sep 2024, 9:30 pm
.'” The amicus brief of William Eskridge, Jr., Steven Calabresi, Naomi Cahn, Alexander Volokh et al. is here; the "Yale philosopher’s" brief, here. [read post]
17 Apr 2010, 3:47 am
Eskridge, Jr., Yale Law School). 12. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 6:43 am
There are many variants of this view, but to name just a few: Ronald Dworkin argued that judges should act as philosophers, promoting justice understood in an abstract way; William Eskridge has argued that statutes must be interpreted dynamically, in light of contemporary social and moral norms; and Judge Posner maintained that judges must interpret statutes pragmatically, to promote efficient outcomes. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 6:29 am
This blog’s symposium on the orders continued with posts from Scott Michelman, William Eskridge, Robin Wilson, Dale Carpenter, and John Neiman. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 9:33 pm
Eskridge, Jr., Daniel A. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 5:21 pm
Planning Committee for the 2015 Workshop on Next Generation Issues of Sex, Gender and the Law: Angela Onwuachi-Willig, University of Iowa College of Law, Chair William Eskridge, Yale Law School Aya Gruber, University of Colorado School of Law Kimberly Yuracko, Northwestern University School of Law Rebecca Zietlow, University of Toledo College of Law [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 6:30 am
For the Balkinization symposium on William N. [read post]
2 Aug 2022, 6:30 am
Eskridge is the ordinary meaning canon: the requirement to interpret statutes according to their plain or ordinary meaning.[20] The agreed-upon ordinary meaning canon produces multiple interpretations, and it manages to divide textualists from one another. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 2:42 pm
And they exemplify the ongoing debates over the future of originalism as an approach to constitutional interpretation.The Cato Institute brief, authored by William Eskridge (Yale), Stephen Calabresi (Brown/Northwestern), and Ilya Shapiro (Cato Institute), argues that a constitutional guarantee of same-sex marriage is consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 11:11 pm
Rev. 213 *** William N. [read post]
1 Feb 2015, 10:35 am
A brieffiled by William Eskridge, John Ferejohn, Charles Fried, Lisa Marshall Manheim and David Strauss explains why a textualist analysis of the law would compel the Court to rule for the government. [read post]
