108 research outputs found
Undue Process: Congressional Referral and Judicial Resistance in the Schiavo Controversy
No full textPart of Symposium: "The Schiavo Case: A Symposium"Samaha, Adam M.. (2005). Undue Process: Congressional Referral and Judicial Resistance in the Schiavo Controversy. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/169946
Drawing Religious and Political Boundaries: Constitutional Anti-Sorting Principles
No full textAnti-sorting – the principle that argues against boundaries that define both religious and political borders – currently rests on two cases decided by the Supreme Court. Professor Samaha traces the history of religious sorting policies and argues that there are two constitutional hooks for anti-sorting: a combination of the First and Fourteenth amendments, which prevent exclusion by local governments
Separation Rhetoric and Its Relevance. Book review of: Separation of Church and State. By Philip Hamburger
No full textBook review: Separation of Church and State. By Philip Hamburger. Harvard University Press. 2002. Pp. 514. Reviewed by: Adam M. SamahaSamaha, Adam M.. (2002). Separation Rhetoric and Its Relevance. Book review of: Separation of Church and State. By Philip Hamburger. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/169394
In vitro activity of antimicrobial agents against extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae at a tertiary care center in Lebanon
No full textLooking for therapeutic options, we assessed the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 7 antimicrobial agents against extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 58) and Escherichia coli (n = 84) isolates. High rates of susceptibility were shown for both E coli and K pneumoniae against ertapenem (100percent for both), piperacillin-tazobactam (83percent and 91percent, respectively) and amikacin (96percent and 82percent, respectively). In addition, most K pneumoniae isolates were susceptible to quinolones (72percent-75percent) and cefepime (88percent). However, clinical correlation is warranted. Copyright © 2005 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.Araj G F, 2000, J Med Liban, V48, P221; Bradford PA, 2001, CLIN MICROBIOL REV, V14, P933, DOI 10.1128-CMR.14.4.933-951.2001; Iqbal M, 2002, J Pak Med Assoc, V52, P407; Jones LE, 1997, J ECON DYN CONTROL, V21, P1, DOI 10.1016-0165-1889(95)00924-8; KANAFANI ZA, 2004, 44 ICAAC OCT 29 NOV; Kanj S S, 2001, J Med Liban, V49, P13; Livermore DM, 2001, ANTIMICROB AGENTS CH, V45, P2831, DOI 10.1128-AAC.45.10.2831-2837.2001; National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 2002, M100S12 NAT COMM CLI; Nishino Takeshi, 2002, Nihon Rinsho, V60, P2216; Paterson DL, 2001, J CLIN MICROBIOL, V39, P2206, DOI 10.1128-JCM.39.6.2206-2212.2001; Samaha-Kfoury JN, 2003, BRIT MED J, V327, P1209, DOI 10.1136-bmj.327.7425.1209; Spanu T, 2002, ANTIMICROB AGENTS CH, V46, P196, DOI 10.1128-AAC.46.1.196-202.2002; Zanetti G, 2003, ANTIMICROB AGENTS CH, V47, P3442, DOI 10.1128-AAC.47.11.3442-3447.200396
Executive Exposure: Government Secrecy, Constitutional Law, and Platforms for Judicial Elaboration
No full textAmerican law never reached a satisfying conclusion about public access to information on government operations. But recent events are prompting reconsideration. As our current system is reassessed, three shortfalls in past debates should be overcome. The first involves ignorance of foreign systems. Other democracies grapple with information access problems, and their recent experiments are illuminating. Indeed they expose two additional domestic weaknesses. One is a line we have drawn within constitutional law. Courts and commentators tend to treat constitutional issues of public access separately from those of executive discretion to withhold information. These matters should be seen as parts of an integrated system. When they are, it is difficult to constitutionalize one without the other. The final deficiency concerns the boundary between constitutional and ordinary law. In a very practical sense, constitutional law and judicial intervention in this field should turn on the character of non-constitutional law—whether nonjudicial actors have built an adequate “platform” for judicial action. That connection is not obvious, but a defensible access system is impossible without confronting it. This Article aims to remedy these three mistakes, and it presents a method for evaluating judicial platforms in the information access context and beyond
Are Commercial Speech Cases Ideological? An Empirical Inquiry
No full textThe empirical study of judicial behavior continues to grow and mature. The live challenges include specification, such as constructing useful conceptions and measures of ideology, mapping particular domains in which identifiable forces influence decisions, and quantifying the magnitudes of those influences. To make progress on these challenges, we roll out new and expanded datasets that build on the work of Cass Sunstein, Lee Epstein, Gregory Sisk, and others, and we report on the character of constitutional litigation today. Our datasets cover U.S. Court of Appeals decisions in five domains: (1) commercial speech, (2) gun rights, (3) abortion rights, (4) establishment clause claims, and (5) anti-affirmative action claims. The bulk of the data reaches into 2016. Part of the data collection was automated, but all judge votes were coded by at least one law professor. Our vote coding allows judges to support claims in part or in full. We then deploy three proxies for judge ideology, including a new variable designed by Adam Bonica and Maya Sen that relies on judges’ pre-appointment campaign contributions. In our regression models, we introduce both standard and novel independent variables, such as three measures of procedural and substantive law.
Commercial speech cases are the focus of this Article. We find no evidence of ideological influence within the full set of those cases, in the sense of judge votes tracking ordinary policy disagreements. The results make commercial speech cases look like gun rights cases—and unlike abortion rights, establishment clause, and affirmative action cases, which are consistently ideologically charged in our models. The differing magnitudes of ideological influence across case sets are presented numerically and visually. However, when commercial speech cases are limited to post-2000 decisions, to cases involving disclosure requirements, or to cases involving “right-wing advertising,” some results do change. Our variable for “big business” claimants is statistically significant in the post-2000 cases but not in the full sample of cases. Also, subtle ideological rifts seem to emerge in the disclosure and rightwing advertising cases, with some judges apparently migrating toward or away from supporting commercial speech claims in part or in full. Some of our findings are preliminary and warrant further research. Regardless, our data and analysis should cast more light on contemporary constitutional litigation as it now stands, after the close of the Obama administration and at the beginning of the Trump presidency
Gun Control after Heller: Litigating against Regulation
No full textThe “core right” established in D.C. vs. Heller (2008) is to keep an operable handgun in the home for self-defense purposes. If the Court extends this right to cover state and local jurisdictions, the result is likely to include the elimination of the most stringent existing regulations – such as Chicago’s handgun ban – and could also possibly ban regulations that place substantial restrictions or costs on handgun ownership. We find evidence in support of four conclusions: The effect of Heller may be to increase the prevalence of handgun ownership in jurisdictions that currently have restrictive laws; Given the best evidence on the consequences of increased prevalence of gun ownership, these jurisdictions will experience a greater burden of crime due to more lethal violence and an increased burglary rate; Nonetheless, a regime with greater scope for gun rights is not necessarily inferior – whether restrictive regulations would pass a cost benefit test may depend on whether we accept the Heller viewpoint that there is a legal entitlement to possess a handgun; In any event, the core right defined by Heller leaves room for some regulation that would reduce the negative externalities of gun ownership.
Dedication: Justice John Paul Stevens
No full textThe editors of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review dedicate the law review’s inaugural Supreme Court issue to Justice John Paul Stevens, upon his retirement from the bench and in honor of his incredible and lasting contributions to the legal community. The issue includes dedication letters from President Bill Clinton, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as well as dedication letters and essays written by Justice Stevens’ former clerks Susan R. Estrich, Michael J. Gottlieb, Abner S. Greene, Jamal Greene, Melissa Hart, Amanda Leiter, Gregory P. Magarian, Nancy S. Marder, David Pozen, Adam M. Samaha, and Samuel Spital
Judicial Oversight in Two Dimensions: Charting Area and Intensity in the Decisions of Justice Stevens
No full text- …
