STU Scholarly Works (St. Thomas University)
Not a member yet
1001 research outputs found
Sort by
Consumidores: Análisis Exegético De La Ley
No full texthttps://scholarship.stu.edu/faculty_books/1004/thumbnail.jp
Human Rights: The Crises Today
No full textKeynote Dinner Address by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member of U.S. House of Representatives\u27 Committee on Foreign Affairs, for the Intercultural Human Rights Law Review Annual Symposium
Kosher Slaughter, State Regulation of Religious Organizations, and the European Court of Human Rights
No full textOn May 6, 2009, the European Parliament passed a legislative resolution regarding the regulation of animal slaughter in the European Union. The resolution addressed a proposal made by the European Commission in September 2008. The Commission\u27s proposal had also been referred to the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), and the latter produced an opinion in its regard on February 25, 2009. The European Parliament\u27s new resolution is an important milestone in the European debate surrounding the slaughter of animals in general and the regulation of ritual slaughter in particular. Against the background of this resolution, we may now assess the unfolding of recent developments in the debate over ritual slaughter in Europe, and highlight a number of issues that have recently been afforded little attention
Death is Different: The Need for Jury Unanimity in Death Penalty Cases
No full textFlorida requires jury unanimity in virtually all criminal trials. The only exception is death. In this sense, the maxim that death is different takes on ironic tones. In Florida, once the defendant is found guilty of a capital crime, the jury, after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, recommends the sentence to the judge. The judge, however, ultimately imposes the sentence. Florida stands alone among thirty-five states in allowing a simple majority of the jury both to decide whether the prosecution proved an aggravating circumstance and to recommend a sentence of death. Both legal and policy grounds suggest that more than a simple majority should be required. Florida should change its capital sentencing scheme to require that a jury unanimously find an aggravator. Part II of this Article explores the contours of Florida\u27s capital sentencing scheme and focuses on the portion of the Florida Statutes that authorizes a mere majority of the jury to determine the existence of an aggravator. Part III examines capital sentencing schemes across the country to determine whether Florida\u27s scheme is typical of those in other States. Part IV then explores Supreme Court precedent on capital sentencing schemes to determine whether the United States Constitution requires a state to determine aggravators unanimously. Finally, in Part V, after exploring historical and policy reasons behind the requirement that only unanimous juries render verdicts, the authors recommend that the Florida Legislature revisit its death penalty statute to require unanimous juries find the prosecution proved an aggravator
Front Matter
No full textFront Matter includes the Table of Contents and Letter from the Editor for St. Thomas Law Review Volume 21, Issue 3, Spring 2009
Subprime Loans: Turning the American Dream into a Nightmare
No full textThis Comment will first illustrate how the prime and subprime industry works by addressing various subtopics such as: (1) the characteristics of subprime borrowers; (2) the qualification process; (3) the different loan products available; and (4) how consumers are trapped by subprime loans. Second, it will discuss the current federal and state legislation governing the lending industry, and inquire into proposed lending regulations. Third, it will analyze the current financial crisis, along with its causes and consequences. Fourth, it will provide both a short-term and long-term solution to the current financial crisis
Rhymes with Rich: Power, Law, and the Bitch
No full textFor over six centuries, bitch has been used as a term of contempt toward women. Originally, bitch referenced a sensual or promiscuous woman, and later evolved to include a woman considered angry, spiteful, or malicious. Today, the term includes a woman deemed aggressive, competitive, or domineering. Despite its definitional nuances, bitch remains an unequivocal expression of hostility used to denounce, harass, and insult women who, by acting outside of their prescribed gender roles, threaten the established paradigm of power as an inherently male characteristic. Part I of this article examines the animus behind the bitch epithets levied against women in politics, an arena typically reserved for, and overwhelmingly populated by, male participants. Part II discusses the consideration of bitch when part of unlawful hostile workplace behavior in Title VII sexual harassment cases. Part III examines the legal and cultural shifts that must occur to dismantle the gendered hierarchical power structure existing in the realms of work, politics, and society at large
When Keton Met Twombly-Iqbal: Implications for Pretext Challenges to Eminent Domain
No full textSome of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in recent years have involved the seemingly mundane topics of property rights and interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, in 2005, the Court\u27s decision in Kelo v. City of New London1 ignited public outrage and sparked demands that states take action to impose more restrictive limits on government\u27s use of eminent domain. Kelo captured media attention and galvanized an eminent domain reform movement that, as of the end of 2008, had produced state-level reform in forty-three states. It generated keen interest and vigorous debate among scholars, students, government officials, attorneys specializing in eminent domain, developers, activists, and political commentators. Eminent domain issues remain of great interest to the public and the media continues to focus attention on eminent domain injustices. The Court\u27s 2007 decision in the antitrust case Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly retire[d] ,, at least in part, Conley v. Gibson\u27s longstanding interpretation that had governed pleadings and motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in favor of a plausibility standard.
Finally, the Court\u27s 2009 decision Ashcroft v. Iqbal\u27 confirmed that Twombly was not limited to antitrust cases under the Sherman Act, but covered all cases governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court in Iqbal went on to announce a two-pronged test for examining motions under Rule 12(b)(6) that may prove to make it even more difficult for complaints to survive such motions to dismiss. While the Twombly-Iqbal duo attracted little media or public attention, it startled judges, litigators, and scholars. It has generated consternation, confusion, controversy, and debate among them. It has apparently gained political attention as evidenced by a bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Arlen Specter that, if enacted in its present form, would provide that a Federal Court shall not dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) or (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Conley v. Gibson. \u27The Twombly-Iqbal duo, like Kelo, has caused more than a little upheaval. What happens when Kelo meets Twombly-Iqbal? This article explores the possible impact of Twombly-Iqbal on pretext challenges to takings under the power of eminent domain. It suggests that the procedural changes wrought by Twombly-Iqbal will make it even more difficult for landowners to be successful in bringing such challenges on the federal level. With federal opportunities for challenges thus further curtailed, challenges to takings based on state law become increasingly important. At the same time, states that utilize the prior interpretation of pleadings and Rule 12(b)(6) established by Conley under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be faced with the question of whether or not to adopt all, some, or any of the modifications created by Twombly-Iqbal. This article also suggests that use at the state level of the Twombly-Iqbal test may undermine the viability of pretext challenges based on state law. States\u27 decisions of whether or not, and if so, how, to modify state rules of procedure are usually made on a transsubstantive basis, not dictated by their impact in one area of law. However, the importance that citizens attach to property rights has been made clear by the public outrage that followed Kelo and the subsequent demand for reform at the state level. Thus, it is important that the impact of Twombly-Iqbal on states\u27 eminent domain laws, particularly those that address pretextual takings in which eminent domain might be abused to benefit private parties, be kept in mind as states consider changes to their procedural rules. Obviously, eminent domain reformers who intend to protect or establish meaningful pretext challenges to eminent domain on the state level need to be on guard against states\u27 incorporation of Twombly-Iqbal in state rules of civil procedure
International Sanctions from a Human Rights Law Perspective: Some Observations on the Kadi Judgment of the European Court of Justice
No full textIn international law, sanctions may be imposed by States or, if they have the power to do so, by international organizations. In this context the question to consider is whether - and if so, to what extent - respect for human rights must be considered to be a major, perhaps even essential element in the decision-making process
Arms in the Hands of Jews are a Danger to Public Safety: Nazism, Firearm Registration, and the Night of the Broken Glass
No full textThe following begins with a detailed analysis of the arrest reports of Alfred Flatow and two other Berlin Jews who possessed registered firearms or whose firearms were discovered in house searches by the police. It then shows these arrests to have been part of an orchestrated Nazi police campaign to disarm all Berlin Jews, including those whose firearms were lawfully possessed. Having rendered Jews defenseless, the stage was set for a major pogrom. When an incident, which took place abroad, gave the Nazis the excuse they needed for a rampage throughout all of Germany, the Night of the Broken Glass--characterized by massive searches and seizures against Jews allegedly for weapons, and involving the destruction of homes, businesses, and synagogues-was the result