{"id":51809,"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-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"edward-lazarus-archive-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/edward-lazarus-archive-2.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\n

THE CASE THAT ROARED: A LIMITED “DISPARATE IMPACT” HOLDING \nTHAT COULD HAVE LARGE REPERCUSSIONS <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw Columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus discusses the Court’s recent decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, which held there is no private right of action, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, to bring suit claiming “disparate impact” discrimination. The case might sound innocuous — for “disparate impact” regulations still stand, and can be enforced by the government. But it was \n\nimportant enough to spur Justice Stevens to read his opinion from the bench. Lazarus explains why. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, May. 01, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DEATH PENALTY POLARIZATION: AS ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT CALLS FOR “CLOSURE” WITH MCVEIGH’S EXECUTION, JUSTICE GINSBURG JOINS THE MORATORIUM MOVEMENT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus contrasts two recent\n\ndevelopments in the death penalty debate: Attorney General John Ashcroft’s\n\ndecision to televise Timothy McVeigh’s execution via closed-circuit\n\ntelevision to victims’ families, and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader\n\nGinsburg’s call for a death penalty moratorium. Lazarus contends that\n\nAshcroft’s decision to televise can only be justified by vengeance, not\n\ndeterrence or “closure” (its stated purpose), and he notes that Ginsburg is\n\nfollowing a pattern of Justices who become more anti-death penalty the\n\nlonger they serve on the Court.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Apr. 17, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WARS: A CONUNDRUM FOR CONSERVATIVES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus claims to have caught\n\nconservatives in a conundrum relating to the current hot topic of\n\naffirmative\n\naction — one that will reach the Supreme Court again soon. Lazarus points\n\nout that last year, in the debate over whether the Clinton Administration\n\nshould support the federal anti-Miranda statute, many conservatives argued\n\nthat the federal government must defend in court any plausibly\n\nconstitutional\n\nfederal statute, even one with which the current administration disagrees.\n\nBut if that principle is accepted, Lazarus contends, then the Bush\n\nAdministration must defend the federal affirmative action statute in court,\n\ntoo — rather than “confess error,” reverse the prior administration’s\n\nposition, and attack the statute, as many are urging.
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Apr. 03, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FIGHTING FOR THE SOUL OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY-\nWHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM BUSH’S NOMINATION PROCESS, AND HIS NOMINEES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus explains that, with\n\nover 100 federal judgeships at stake, the coming clash over Bush\n\nAdministration judicial nominees will likely be hard-fought. Lazarus\n\ncontends, however, that the fight should avoid the illusory distinction that\n\nsome commentators — including the New York Times’ Anthony Lewis — have\n\ndrawn between judicial merit and judicial ideology. The battleground for\n\ncontemporary judgeships, Lazarus suggest, is inherently an ideological and\n\npolitical one and it should be acknowledged as such.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Mar. 20, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SUPREME COURT VOTING STRATEGIES:\n DEFENSIVE DENIALS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus discusses an\n\nimportant Supreme Court voting strategy, that of the “defensive denial” —\n\nin which justices vote to deny review of cases because they fear a grant of\n\nreview would lead to a result they oppose. Lazarus discusses the history of\n\ndefensive denials, and contends that recently both liberal and conservative\n\njudges may be adopting the defensive denial strategy due to the\n\nunpredictability of Justice O’Connor’s swing vote.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Mar. 07, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HOW CLINTON’S PARDONS MAY AFFECT FUTURE PRESIDENTS’ PARDON POWER<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus discusses former President Clinton’s recent New York Times Op Ed defending his use of the pardon power. Lazarus contends that Clinton’s invoking historical pardon precedents in his Op Ed, to justify his exercise of the pardon power, only illustrates how some of the Clinton pardons (such as those of Marc Rich and four members of the New Square Hasidic community) broke with tradition. Pardons like these, Lazarus argues, threaten to set a dangerously low bar for future Presidents’ use of the pardon power. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Feb. 20, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY WE SHOULD CONSIDER ABOLISHING LIFE TENURE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney and author Edward Lazarus notes the recent\n\nWashington rumors that Justice O’Connor will soon retire, and reflects on\n\nthe general problem of both conservative and liberal Justices retiring\n\n“politically” — that is, only when a president of their party is in office.\n\nLazarus explains how a constitutional amendment setting fixed, one-time, 18\n\nyear terms for Justices would address this problem, and discusses the pros\n\nand cons of such an amendment.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Feb. 06, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE COMING ERA OF FEDERAL EXECUTIONS?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus contends that the\n\nBush\n\npresidency, particularly with Ashcroft as Attorney General, may be marked by\n\na substantial number of federal executions, and Timothy McVeigh’s may be\n\nonly the\n\nbeginning. As Lazarus explains, internal Department of Justice checks may\n\nreduce the risk that innocents will be executed. But legal challenges still\n\nmay succeed, for DOJ’s own recent report evidenced racial bias in federal\n\nexecutions — bias that may meet the standard necessary to invalidate the\n\nfederal death penalty.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jan. 23, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE PROPER STANDARD FOR ASHCROFT’S CONFIRMATION FIGHT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus considers what the \n\nproper standard should be for the confirmation fight of Bush attorney general \n\nnominee, and former Senator, John Ashcroft. Lazarus contends that Ashcroft’s \n\nright wing politics should not alone disqualify him — though they might \n\ndisqualify a Supreme Court nominee — for President-elect Bush is entitled to \n\nan Attorney General of whose politics he approves. More troubling,Lazarus \n\nargues, is Ashcroft’s record, while he was a Senator, of unfairly shutting \n\ndown the confirmations of others.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jan. 09, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST’S LEGACY\n<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus predicts that Chief \n\nJustice Rehnquist is likely to leave the Court during George W. Bush’s \n\nadministration, and examines the legacy Rehnquist will leave — a destructive \n\none, Lazarus argues, in which both Court precedent and Court cohesiveness \n\nhave been harmed. Lazarus explains how the Bush v. Gore decision, in \n\nparticular, allows us insight into the Rehnquist legacy.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Dec. 26, 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\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