CategoryDiscourse

This Article investigates a hitherto unexplored connection between money and politics. It posits a psychological explanation for why certain extremely wealthy and powerful tycoons back ultraconservative causes and oppose social spending, even on education, though these measures would benefit the economy as a whole. Employing the concept of transcendence, it shows how wealthy parents are often...

Once reserved for high profile cases or clients with “deep pockets,” juror investigations have become increasingly common in the digital age. With a couple of keystrokes, attorneys can now uncover a wealth of information about jurors online. This Article examines the positive impact of technology on juror investigations in criminal trials, such as improving the use of peremptory challenges...

The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1500, “Pendency of claims in other courts,” is to force upon plaintiffs suing the federal government a mutually exclusive election between either the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) or other courts, so as to minimize jurisdictional conflict and to preclude duplicative claims. Under current precedent, the statute strips the CFC of jurisdiction if the claim before the...

Each year, the UCLA School of Law presents the Rutter Award for Excellence in Teaching to an outstanding law professor. On April 7, 2010, this honor was given to Professor Thomas Holm, the director of UCLA Law’s Lawyering Skills Clinical Program. UCLA Law Review Discourse is proud to continue its tradition of publishing a modified version of the ceremony speech delivered by the award recipient...

The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule began to unravel in United States v. Leon. The facts were compelling. Why exclude reliable physical evidence from trial when it was not the constable who blundered, but “a detached and neutral magistrate” who misjudged whether probable cause was present and issued a search warrant? Later cases applied the exception for “good faith” mistakes to a police...

In the 1967 case In re Gault, the U.S. Supreme Court revolutionized juvenile criminal proceedings by holding that children were constitutionally entitled to legal counsel and the privilege against self-incrimination. In contrast to Miranda v. Arizona, decided the previous year, the Court’s reasoning was not centered on preventing involuntary confessions. Instead, the Court was concerned that...

Responding to the argument that homeowners who strategically default on their mortgages are immoral and socially irresponsible, this Article argues that defaulting on a mortgage contract is not only morally acceptable, it may be the most responsible course of action when necessary to fulfill more important obligations to one’s family.

In his New Reading article, Professor Oliar set forth a detailed and, in many respects, plausible reconstruction of the Framers’ intent when drafting the Intellectual Property (IP) Clause. But it is a reconstruction predicated on conjecture and supposition in the absence of any historical record actually setting forth such intent. He contends that the Framers’ intent is important because it has...

This Essay provides analysis and some criticism of the argument that international human rights treaties should focus more on development and welfare and less on basic negative rights. It argues that “welfarist” treaties that completely ignore human rights concerns will in theory harm heterogeneous societies with significant minority populations. In focusing only on development goals—for example...

The case of Bush v. Gore stands out as the seminal decision that decided the disputed presidential election of 2000. For legal researchers, it was a herald of a different sort. With the citation in the per curiam opinion to an online newspaper article, Bush v. Gore fired the first salvo in the death of twentieth-century authority. While courts in the past relied on a select group of print...