William N. Eskridge, Jr. (Yale) & Philip P. Frickey (Boalt), Quasi-Constitutional Law: Clear Statement Rules As Constitutional Lawmaking, 45 Vand. L. Rev. 593 (1992). (excerpts from 621-22 & 638-40 on pgs 615-16 of Federal Courts casebook)
Key quote: "The Court's new super-strong clear statement rules are extraordinarily countermajoritarian: they not only pose the possibility of ignoring legislative expectations, but they also make it quite hard for Congress to express its expectations . . . . The decision [in Dellmuth] suggested a certain judicial haughtiness and uncooperativeness that is surely inconsistent with the humble due process of lawmaking rationale for the Court's super-strong clear statement rules."
Showing posts with label countermajoritarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label countermajoritarian. Show all posts
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(44)
-
▼
March
(21)
- Ascertaining the Laws of the Several State: Positi...
- Reconstructing Erie: A Comment on The Perils of Le...
- US v. Johnson
- The Jurisdictional Label: Use and Misuse
- The Federalist #80
- The Federalist #51
- In Search of Removal Jurisdiction
- Sad Time: Thoughts on Jurisdictionality, the Legal...
- The Failure of Bowles v. Russell
- Jurisdiction, Merits, and Procedure: Thoughts on D...
- The Dubious Concept of Jurisdiction
- Is Citizen Suit Notice Jurisdictional and Why Does...
- Bowles v. Russell
- Jurisdictionality and Bowles v. Russell
- Misguided Federalism
- All About Words: Early Understandings of the "Judi...
- Abstention and the Constitutional Limits of the Ju...
- "Arising Under" Jurisdiction in the Federalism Ren...
- More Than a Legal Nicety: Why the Forum Defendant ...
- Insufficiently Jurisdictional: The Case Against Tr...
- Executing the Treaty Power
-
▼
March
(21)