Originalism as Faith

Segall, Eric J.

doi:10.1017/9781108105316

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Roberts Court has decided a wide array of First Amendment cases, 76 earning criticism for having “turned the first amendment into a weapon” for “conservative interests.” 77 While privacy law scholars have long indicated that data privacy laws are not properly envisioned within First Amendment space 78 such claims predated the provocative decision in TransUnion . 303 Creative LLC v .…”

Section: Recent Activity By the Roberts Court That Will Undermine Alg...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Algorithmic Fairness in the Roberts Court Era

Wagner

2022

Biocomputing 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists and policymakers alike have increasingly been interested in exploring ways to advance algorithmic fairness, recognizing not only the potential utility of algorithms in biomedical and digital health contexts but also that the unique challenges that algorithms—in a datafied culture such as the United States—pose for civil rights (including, but not limited to, privacy and nondiscrimination). In addition to the technical complexities, separation of powers issues are making the task even more daunting for policymakers—issues that might seem obscure to many scientists and technologists. While administrative agencies (such as the Federal Trade Commission) and legislators have been working to advance algorithmic fairness (in large part through comprehensive data privacy reform), recent judicial activism by the Roberts Court threaten to undermine those efforts. Scientists need to understand these legal developments so they can take appropriate action when contributing to a biomedical data ecosystem and designing, deploying, and maintaining algorithms for digital health. Here I highlight some of the recent actions taken by policymakers. I then review three recent Supreme Court cases (and foreshadow a fourth case) that illustrate the radical power grab by the Roberts Court, explaining for scientists how these drastic shifts in law will frustrate governmental approaches to algorithmic fairness and necessitate increased reliance by scientists on self-governance strategies to promote responsible and ethical practices.

show abstract

Section: Recent Activity By the Roberts Court That Will Undermine Alg...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Algorithmic Fairness in the Roberts Court Era

Wagner

2022

Biocomputing 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Hyping the Hypothetical: Talk and Temporality in US Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Gibson

2024

Qual Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The US Supreme Court conducts much of its business through talk, including during oral arguments, where a central activity is the consideration of hypotheticals posed by justices. Using conversation analysis, I examine a key segment of the oral arguments for Citizens United v. FEC, one that arguably changed the course of campaign finance history. I identify the conversational devices employed to advance and contest one particular hypothetical, involving an imagined ban on books, subject to a speech-exchange system that differentially empowers justices to dictate both the terms of the discussion and the time afforded the advocate to respond to any particular question. The article offers the first disciplined qualitative analysis of interaction during oral arguments, illustrates the place of temporality in legal reasoning and argumentation, and makes several contributions to conversation analysis: it advances the study of institutional talk to a new legal setting, identifies some ways in which the machinery of talk can be harnessed for rhetorical effect, and demonstrates the analytical utility of prior knowledge of what a participant arrives to an encounter equipped to say.

show abstract

Law

2022

America's Energy Gamble

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Congress's Authority to Influence and Control Executive Branch AgenciesThe Constitution neither establishes administrative agencies nor explicitly prescribes the manner by which they may be created. Even so, the Supreme Court has generally recognized that Congress has broad constitutional authority to establish and shape the federal bureaucracy. Congress may use its Article I lawmaking powers to create federal agencies and individual offices within those agencies, design agencies' basic structures and operations, and prescribe, subject to certain constitutional limitations, how those holding agency offices are appointed and removed. Congress also may enumerate the powers, duties, and functions to be exercised by agencies, as well as directly counteract, through later legislation, certain agency actions implementing delegated authority.The most potent tools of congressional control over agencies, including those addressing the structuring, empowering, regulating, and funding of agencies, typically require enactment of legislation. Such legislation must comport with constitutional requirements related to bicameralism (i.e., it must be approved by both houses of Congress) and presentment (i.e., it must be presented to the President for signature). The constitutional process to enact effective legislation requires the support of the House, Senate, and the President, unless the support in both houses is sufficient to override the President's veto.There also are many non-statutory tools (i.e., tools not requiring legislative enactment to exercise) that may be used by the House, Senate, congressional committees, or individual Members of Congress to influence and control agency action. In some cases, non-statutory measures, such as impeachment and removal, Senate advice and consent to appointments or the ratification of treaties, and committee issuance of subpoenas, can impose legal consequences. Others, however, such as House resolutions of inquiry, may not be used to bind agencies or agency officials and rely for their effectiveness on their ability to persuade or influence.

show abstract

Originalism as Faith

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Algorithmic Fairness in the Roberts Court Era

Algorithmic Fairness in the Roberts Court Era

Hyping the Hypothetical: Talk and Temporality in US Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About