Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Legal Theory Blog
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Academic
: Legal Theory BlogFriedman on Stealth Overruling & Miranda v. Arizona
By Lawrence Solum
ADVERTISEMENTS
Barry Friedman (New York University School of Law) has posted The Wages of Stealth Overruling (With Particular Attention to Miranda v. Arizona) (Georgetown Law Journal, 2010) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:-
Over the last few years ? and especially following the 2006 Term ? commentators have criticized the Supreme Court for engaging in ?stealth overruling.? This article examines the phenomenon, trying to ascertain why the justices engage in the practice and how we should feel about it. The article focuses on the gradual overruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because here tangible evidence is available about the benefit to the justices ? and costs to the rest of us ? of the practice of stealth overruling. The article demonstrates that by engaging in stealth overruling the justices are able to see that their will is done by lower courts and public officials, yet avoid any negative effect from public opinion. While the strategy benefits the justices, it has costs. Doctrine is rendered incoherent, and public officials are encouraged to evade federal law. Of greatest concern, stealth overruling tempers the dialogue between the Court and the public about the proper meaning of the Constitution, leaving the course of constitutional law solely in the justices? hands.
The title of the post has been fixed "stealth" not "steal."
Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on July 27, 2010 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Microsoft
Settles with Arizona for $4.4 Million
Class Action Filed Over Incontinence Briefs
Arizona Health Care Faces Federal Class Action over Incontinence Briefs
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Here We Go Again: U.S. Supreme Court to tackle clarity of Miranda warnings again
Yesterday's Miranda Opinion in Florida v. Powell
Computer Search & Seizure / Miranda v. Arizona Slides








