University of California, Irvine
University of California, Irvine: UCI Law Scholarly CommonsNot a member yet
1242 research outputs found
Sort by
Erwin Chemerinsky and Beatrice Tice
No full textErwin Chemerinsky and Beatrice Tice at the Second Annual Celebration of Books, April 21, 2011.https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2011_photos/1003/thumbnail.jp
Christopher Leslie
No full textChristopher Leslie at the Sixth Annual Celebration of Books, March 19, 2015.https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2015_photos/1008/thumbnail.jp
Christopher Tomlins
No full textChristopher Tomlins at the First Annual Celebration of Books, Spring 2010.https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2010_photos/1003/thumbnail.jp
Electoral Sandbagging
Full text linkAn insidious tactic threatens elections across the United States. Some refer to it as a “bait and switch.” Others recognize a form of “election sabotage.” While the labels vary, the pattern is the same. First, an election official or other figure of authority consents to an error at an early stage of the election process. The actor then waits to see how the election unfolds. If the election results are favorable, the error slides into irrelevance. If not, that same actor refers back to the earlier error, now with indignity, and insists that it requires a late-stage disruption of the election process. The aim of this maneuver—a maneuver this Article terms “electoral sandbagging”—is to install a favored candidate into office. An effect is to imperil the election process from within.
This Article, the first to identify and examine this pattern, connects it to another phenomenon: sandbagging in the courtroom. There, Justice Scalia defined the practice as “suggesting or permitting, for strategic reasons, that the trial court pursue a certain course, and later—if the outcome is unfavorable—claiming that the course followed was reversible error.” Unsurprisingly, judges have long recognized and denounced this tactic. Sandbagging in the election context warrants even stronger censure. Among other harms, electoral sandbagging fundamentally undermines the fairness of election proceedings and otherwise strikes at the heart of democratic governance. By exposing and contextualizing this growing phenomenon, this Article provides guidance for a path forward. In addition, by demonstrating how electoral sandbagging thrives in the shadows—its perpetuators dependent on dissembling and subterfuge—this Article helps to counteract its effects
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
No full textCarrie Menkel-Meadow at the Second Annual Celebration of Books, April 21, 2011.https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2011_photos/1000/thumbnail.jp
Transnational Legal Order Through Rule of Law? Appraising the United Nations Security Council, 1990-2022
Full text linkUtilizing the theoretical framework of transnational legal orders (TLOs), this article treats two master questions in global governance: what are the limits to the power of the UN Security Council? Can norms of rule-of-law constrain UNSC powers? First, we outline a research design with emphasis on its documentary and unique internal empirical sources. Second, we sketch an interpretive narrative of UNSC engagement from the early 1990s to the present with ROL in three areas of UNSC action: peacekeeping, sanctions, and force. Third, we offer a new conceptual approach by proposing that ROL in the UNSC manifests itself in three dimensions: discourse; procedure (or rules); and structures. These dimensions come into play both internally, within the UNSC itself, and externally, to ROL institution-building in and between states, as well as in post-conflict zones, with a rather gray area between (e.g., when the UN peacekeeping missions are themselves subject to ROL oversight for the behavior of their personnel). Fourth, we examine the emergence of micro-TLOs under construction within the UNSC itself. We conclude with reflections on the potential for empowering elected members of the UNSC and weaker states in the UN to press ROL norms on the UNSC as a springboard for ROL global governance via the UNSC
Mary Basick
No full textMary Basick at the Annual Celebration of Books, March 27, 2023.https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2022-2023_photos/1006/thumbnail.jp
A Tough Roe to Hoe: How the Reversal of Roe v. Wade Threatens to Destabilize the LGBTQ+ Legal Landscape Today
Full text linkFor the first time in nearly thirty years, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Supreme Court was asked, again, to overturn its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade finding a constitutional right to an abortion. And with three new Trump appointees and a 6-3 conservative majority, it was finally able to do just that. The Court’s decision in Dobbs has called into question not just the safety of abortion but of other constitutional rights grounded in similar tradition and legal doctrine. This Note considers the effects that the Dobbs decision could have on LGBTQ+ rights in particular and proceeds in four parts. Part I analyzes the cultural similarities underlying the issues of abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. Part II surveys the current Court’s attitude toward abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, as well as its attitude toward the doctrine of stare decisis. Part III analyzes the analogous legal doctrines utilized by the majorities in landmark abortion and LGBTQ+ rights cases. Part IV considers the effects that the overruling of Roe could have on existing LGBTQ+ precedent today and suggests that—to the extent those precedents are put at risk—modern practitioners going before the Court should seek to actively decouple these issues in the eyes of the Justices