SELECTION AND RETENTION OF JUDGES: IS THERE ONE “BEST” METHOD?
Peter D. Webster
The debate over selection and tenure of judges has been ongoing since shortly after the founding of our nation. Although frequently not recognized as such, the debate is, in reality, but one manifestation of a much more fundamental philosophical and political disagreement regarding the role of judges in our political system. Should judges be nothing more than interpreters of the law, searching some “corpus juris” for the most appropriate rule, then applying that rule to the particular controversy; or should judges perform the role of law-makers and, if so, what are the legitimate limits of that role to be? The response to this fundamental question will, to a major extent, dictate the answer to whether judicial independence or judicial accountability is viewed as a relatively more desirable and important goal. This will, in turn, determine one’s position in the debate regarding alternative methods of judicial selection and retention.
FAMILY MEDIATION: SCREENING FOR DOMESTIC ABUSE
Alison E. Gerenscer
A recent family mediation began with the father shouting, “Do you know what I’d do if my son ever came home with an earring? I’d cut off his ear.” He was responding to the mother’s request that he stop berating their son. This outburst was no surprise. In a pre-mediation screening questionnaire, the mother said the father had abused her. Although she wanted to try mediation, she was unsure whether she could participate on an equal basis with the father. As the mediation progressed, the mother willingly acquiesced to the father’s visitation demands in his presence. However, she said privately that she did not want him near her or their children, and that she had agreed to his demands only because she was afraid of him. The mediation ended in an impasse, with no reported mention of the father’s abusive history or the mother’s fear of further abuse based on her conduct at the mediation.
LAW SCHOOL AND THE CONSTITUTION
Peter K. Rofes
Since the late eighteenth century, the Constitution of the United States has been our highest law, the Ace of trump in our long and sometimes tempestuous national bridge game. Most of the divisive issues that have emerged throughout our history—including Prohibition, Vietnam, and the battle to replace Johnny Carson as host of The Tonight Show—have been issues in which the Constitution has figured prominently. Likewise, much of what practicing lawyers do every day—from laundering money for candidates and political action committees to purchasing child pornography from undercover police officers—is fraught with constitutional considerations. It thus should come as no surprise that the Constitution occupies a central role in the American law school.
PROTECTING TRUTHFUL ADVERTISING BY ATTORNEY-CPAs—IBANEZ V. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, 114 S. CT. 2084 (1994)
Edward L. Birk
When Winter Haven attorney Silvia S. Ibanez advertised her qualifications as a member of The Florida Bar, as a certified public accountant (CPA), and as a certified financial planner (CFP), she knew she was telling the truth about her qualifications. She also thought she was providing information to her clients and potential clients that would help them make informed choices. The Florida Board of Accountancy (the Board), however, saw Ibanez’s advertisements quite differently. The Board attempted to reprimand her for using the initials JD, CPA, and CFP in her telephone advertisements, on her business cards, and on her firm letterhead. The Board proposed a reprimand and accused Ibanez of engaging in false, misleading, and deceptive advertising.
IN SEARCH OF THE LOST AMENDMENT: CHALLENGING FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATION THROUGH UTILIZATION OF THE STATE’S RIGHT INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Gregory Lee Shelton
The recent passage of the President’s crime bill, which includes a ban by the federal government on the purchase or sale of certain “assault weapons,” has forced the usually ignored Second Amendment into the national spotlight. While the recent Republican takeover of Congress decreases the possibility of additional federal restrictions on gun ownership in the near future, existing federal firearms legislation keeps alive the question of whether the Second Amendment guarantees to the individual a constitutional right to bear arms. Also, the April 19, 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City allegedly by individuals loosely connected with so-called “militia” groups, has served as a catalyst to bring the Second Amendment into the spotlight. Adding to the attention, the academic realm has challenged the viability of the “state’s right” interpretation of the Second Amendment,4 an interpretation which has been embraced by at least six federal circuit courts.
BEYOND HEALTH CARE REFORM: RECONSIDERING CERTIFICATE OF NEED LAWS IN A MANAGED COMPETITION SYSTEM
Patrick John McGinley
America is spending nearly a trillion dollars annually on health care. Although neither state nor national legislators can agree on the details, the focus of health care reform has been the “managed competition” model. Managed competition intends to control health care costs by encouraging price competition among health care providers. In a typical managed competition plan, such as that recently enacted in the state of Florida, a state agency negotiates on behalf of many purchasers in order to demand lower prices from providers. Managed competition, therefore, attempts to lower costs by managing demand.