The Anti-Partisan Principle

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Shag from Brookline says:

    Gerard takes a “Mulligan Mulligan” (an unwritten unwritten rule of golf) with his: “Anyway, no more posts until Monday. The Masters is on, you know.” before he T’s up after this tease of a post.

  2. Dan Cole says:

    Gerard:

    I’m not sure the failed impeachment of Justice Chase represents the principle of non-impeachment for mere political or ideological disagreement. The man was literally prosecuting sedition cases from the bench, for goodness sake.

  3. Joe says:

    It was determined that certain things weren’t “high crimes and misdemeanors” … not sure how this is different from determining certain things aren’t protected speech. We are interpreting terms here and the meanings aren’t clear, true, but “unwritten” seems misleading in some fashion.

    #3/4 seems more the sort of thing being talked about here, that is unwritten norms of how to apply constitutional provisions that can be changed. Not quite the same as saying political isn’t a crime.

    As to ‘judicial enforceable’ regarding the first points, well, yes, under the Walter Nixon case, but that itself is questionable, as seen by the concurring opinion. It is true there are certain ‘political questions’ that won’t be judiciable that still follow constitutional rules of some sort. That might be the point, perhaps.