{"id":51808,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/edward-lazarus-archive-1.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"edward-lazarus-archive-1","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/edward-lazarus-archive-1.html","title":{"rendered":"Edward Lazarus Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n\n
\n

Legal Commentary: Edward Lazarus Archive<\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n

THE SUPREME COURT’S MONDAY ORAL ARGUMENT: HOW THE COURT CAN AVOID THE BAD VARIETY OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM\n<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, author, and former Supreme Court clerk Edward Lazarus considers what the charge \nof “judicial activism” really means; offers a distinction between good and bad kinds of activism; \nand suggests how the U.S. Supreme Court, in resolving the issues argued Monday, can avoid the bad \ntype of activism that may delegitimize the Court as an institution.\n
\n<\/span>\nTueday, Dec. 12, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S OPINION MEANS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, former Supreme Clerk, and author Edward Lazarus explains the impact of the \nU.S. Supreme Court’s Monday decision regarding the Florida Supreme Court’s extension of the \nmanual recount deadline. Lazarus concludes that the Florida court may, if it chooses, re-issue \na decision that would achieve the same result through different analysis, and suggests that the \nU.S. Supreme Court’s wise ruling is an act of statesmanship that will bolster its institutional \nstatus.\n
\n<\/span>\nTueday, Dec. 05, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

WHY THE SUPREME COURT CHOSE TO HEAR GEORGE W. BUSH’S CASE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, former Supreme Court clerk, and Closed Chambers author\nEdward Lazarus considers two possible reasons for the Supreme Court’s\ndecision to hear George W. Bush’s challenge to the Florida Supreme Court’s\nruling this Friday, and reflects on whether the Court will use the case to\nfoster unity (perhaps with a unanimous decision) or sow division.\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Nov. 30, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n

A NEW ANALOGY FOR THE CURRENT ELECTION PREDICAMENT<\/a>\n\n
\nMany pundits have suggested the best analogy for the current election\ndebacle can be found in other Presidential elections held in the 19th\ncentury. But FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus has a\ndifferent take: the election, Lazarus contends, is best analogized to the\nO.J. Simpson murder trial, for both have revealed our society’s deepest rifts.\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Nov. 28, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IF ANYONE SHOULD CONCEDE, IT SHOULD BE BUSH, NOT GORE<\/a>\n
\nAttorney, author, and FindLaw columnist Edward Lazarus takes the Bush campaign to task for pushing for a Gore concession. Lazarus argues that if anyone should concede, it should be Bush, who lost the popular vote nationally and may win it in Florida by luck alone.
<\/span>\nTuesday, Nov. 14, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

ASSESSING BUSH’S CONVICTIONS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and legal Author Edward Lazarus reflects on how the media\nhas chosen to focus more on who may have “leaked” the news of George W. Bush’s \nDUI arrest, rather than the fact that he was convicted at all. Lazarus\nalso assesses Bush’s reasons for keeping his conviction a secret – until\nnow.
\n<\/span>\nSaturday, Nov. 04, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

THE L.A.P.D. SCANDAL<\/a>\n\n
\nLegal author Edward Lazarus explains why police reform in L.A. has not worked \nhistorically — resulting in the infamous recent scandal — and what is necessary for \nreform to work in the future.
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Oct. 05, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

SUPREME COURT ROULETTE<\/a>\n\n
\nA former Supreme Court clerk addresses the conventional wisdom that the\nnext presidential election will transform the Supreme Court.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Aug. 08, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

CONFESSING ERROR<\/a>\n\n
\nIn a death penalty case recently decided by the Supreme Court, Texas\nconfessed error — an unusual development in capital cases. A legal\nwriter discusses the politics of confessing error.
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jun. 16, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

HOW MIRANDA REALLY WORKS<\/a>\n\n
\nA former federal prosecutor tells the Supreme Court to preserve the \nfamous ruling.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Jun. 05, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 5<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n<\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n