The Law Clerks' Recommendations and Chief Justice Vinson's Vote on Certiorari

The chapter contains more about the internal business of the Court, the interaction among the judges, the role of the judge rapporteur, the influence of the Court’s president, the cooperation with the law clerks, the value of oral arguments. Furthermore, it describes the position of the Court within the system of separation of powers. End of the term as justice.

Download Full-text

Accountability of Judges

Justice versus Judiciary ◽

10.1093/oso/9780199490493.003.0002 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 22-151

Author(s):

Sudhanshu Ranjan

Keyword(s):

The State ◽

The Other ◽

James I ◽

Chief Justice ◽

The Law ◽

King James I

Judges are not above the law. Like the other institutions of the State, the judiciary must be accountable. Chief Justice Edward Coke told King James I point blank that was not above the law and quoted jurist Bracton, Non-sub homine sed sub deo et lege. (The King is under no man, save under God and the law.) Ironically, judges themselves don’t appear to be following this dictum giving an impression that they are above the law. The judiciary should be accountable according to its own reasonings employed for holding all other institutions to account. But it abhors the idea of accountability for itself in the name of its independence. It is a misnomer as independence and accountability are complementary, not antagonistic.

Download Full-text

Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act: Providing Redress or Maintaining Status Quo?

Social Change ◽

10.1177/0049085720957753 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 004908572095775

Author(s):

Pallavi Gupta ◽

Nikhat Fatima ◽

Sandeep Kandikuppa

Keyword(s):

Sexual Harassment ◽

Status Quo ◽

Chief Justice ◽

The Law ◽

And Gender ◽

Do So

Despite a law against sexual harassment of women at the workplace, persons holding high offices, including senior judges, seem to enjoy impunity. By critically examining the allegations made against Justice Ranjan Gogoi (retd), former Chief Justice of India, and analysing five other cases of sexual harassment, we highlight how women are routinely denied justice. In doing so, we ask: are women actually able to file complaints of sexual harassment without the fear of facing a backlash? And do they ultimately get justice when they do so? We argue that the implementation of the law against sexual harassment is mediated by caste, class and gender, both of the survivor and of the perpetrator. We point to a changing polity that makes laws, guarantees and protections for women, but stumbles in implementing them in a fair and non-arbitrary manner.

Download Full-text

Sovereignty and Common Law Judicial Office in Taylor's Case (1675)

Law and History Review ◽

10.1017/s0738248019000154 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (2) ◽

pp. 397-429 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

David Kearns

Keyword(s):

Church Of England ◽

Common Law ◽

Ecclesiastical Law ◽

Chief Justice ◽

Spiritual Nature ◽

The Common ◽

English Law ◽

The Law ◽

The Church ◽

Law Making

This essay argues that the 1675 conviction of John Taylor by the Court of King's Bench for slandering God reveals Chief Justice Matthew Hale implementing a model of conjoint law-making between courts, Parliament, and crown that gave pre-eminent power to the common lawyers, and none to the Church of England. In doing so, it counters the prevailing literature on Restoration English law, which has treated the law as hierarchical, with the common lawyers subordinate to the sovereign. Rather than following statute or ecclesiastical law, which emphasised the spiritual nature of crimes like Taylor's, Hale located Taylor's offence in the exclusively temporal common law jurisdiction of defamation, which existed largely outside of monarchical purview. Hale's judgment reflected his rhetoric of judicial office outside the courtroom, where he argued the judiciary worked alongside King and Parliament in making law, but were not subservient to these institutions, for common lawyers relied on sources of law beyond sovereign-made statute. The language of sovereignty as hierarchical was thus a factional attack on an independent common law, an attempt to subordinate the common lawyers to the crown that was resisted by the lawyers like Hale in his rhetoric and exercise of office, and should not ground accounts of the Restoration regime.

Download Full-text

Whose Supremacy? King, Parliament and the Church 1530–1640

Ecclesiastical Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s0956618x00002982 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 4 (21) ◽

pp. 700-708 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Conrad Russell

Keyword(s):

Church Of England ◽

Elizabeth I ◽

Chief Justice ◽

Queen Elizabeth I ◽

Bath Water ◽

The Law ◽

Royal Supremacy ◽

Lord Chancellor ◽

The Church

In October 1993, I had to decide whether it was proper for me, as an unbeliever, to go to Parliament to vote in favour of a Church of England measure. Was it proper that laymen, not members of the church, not involved in the decisions taken, should be allowed to sit in Parliament to decide what the law of the church should be? After some discussion, I was persuaded it was proper, and cast my vote accordingly. In that decision, I recognized the triumph of one version of the Royal Supremacy over another. It is the triumph of Christopher St. German over Bishop Stephen Gardiner, of Sir Francis Knollys over Queen Elizabeth I, of Chief Justice Coke over Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, and of John Pym over Archbishop Laud. That triumph took a century to arrive after Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy, and, like many other triumphs, it threw out a promising baby with its mess of popish bath-water.

Download Full-text

The attempted impeachment of Sir William Scroggs, Lord Chief Justice of the court of King's Bench, November 1680–March 1681

The Historical Journal ◽

10.1017/s0018246x00020483 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 38 (4) ◽

pp. 843-873 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Lois G. Schwoerer

Keyword(s):

Print Culture ◽

Whig Party ◽

Legislative Authority ◽

Chief Justice ◽

Chief Minister ◽

The Press ◽

History Of ◽

The Law ◽

The Government ◽

History Of The Press

ABSTRACTGenerally dismissed by historians as just an hysterical gesture by parliamentary whig leaders disappointed and angered over the failure of the second Exclusion Bill, the attempted impeachment in 1680–1 of Sir William Scroggs was in fact a complicated and important affair. Although a failure in legal terms (because King Charles dissolved two parliaments), it succeeded in political terms when the king dismissed Scroggs. A propaganda ploy to embarrass the duke of York and also the king of England, re-unite the whig party, and re-ignite anti-popery fervour to promote another try at Exclusion (contrary to recent revisionism), the proceedings provoked discussion of many central issues, but most importantly of the legislative authority of parliament, or control of the law; the affair provoked a ‘crisis of authority’. Print culture played an unprecedented role: four of the eight articles of impeachment against Scroggs were connected with the press. Press people, in effect, brought down a chief minister of the crown and severely embarrassed the government, an event of signal importance in the history of the press.

Download Full-text