Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 87:
Line 87: + + + + + + + + + + +
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote against the doctrine of falsifiability in his dissent from the landmark ''Daubert'' decision, which may have caused little use of that important doctrine in courts:
[[Liberals]] have also criticized Rehnquist's narrow view of [[recusal]], as Rehnquist rarely recused himself from a case and would criticize recusal or defend non-recusal. He dismissed calls by [[U.S. Senators]] for Associate Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] to recuse himself in a case involving Scalia's friend Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] in his official rather than personal capacity.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/scotus.cheney.scalia/index.html</ref> Rehnquist did not recuse himself in a case concerning his alma mater [[Stanford University]].<ref>''[[Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.]]''</ref>
[[Liberals]] have also criticized Rehnquist's narrow view of [[recusal]], as Rehnquist rarely recused himself from a case and would criticize recusal or defend non-recusal. He dismissed calls by [[U.S. Senators]] for Associate Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] to recuse himself in a case involving Scalia's friend Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] in his official rather than personal capacity.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/scotus.cheney.scalia/index.html</ref> Rehnquist did not recuse himself in a case concerning his alma mater [[Stanford University]].<ref>''[[Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.]]''</ref>
== Objection the Falsifiability ==
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote against the doctrine of [[falsifiability]] in his dissent from the landmark ''Daubert'' decision, which may have caused little use of that important doctrine in courts:
{{cquote|The Court speaks of its confidence that federal judges can make a "preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." ''Ante'', at 592-593. The Court then states that a "key question" to be answered in deciding whether something is "scientific knowledge" "will be whether it can be (and has been) tested." ''Ante'', at 593. Following this sentence are three quotations from treatises, which not only speak of empirical testing, but one of which states that the "'criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.'" ''Ibid.''
I defer to no one in my confidence in federal judges; but I am at a loss to know what is meant when it is said that the scientific status of a theory depends on its "falsifiability," and I suspect some of them will be, too.
I do not doubt that Rule 702 confides to the judge some gatekeeping responsibility in deciding questions of the admissibility of proffered expert testimony. But I do not think it imposes on them either the obligation or the authority to become amateur scientists in order to perform that role. I think the Court would be far better advised in this case to decide only the questions presented, and to leave the further development of this important area of the law to future cases.}}
''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.'', 509 U.S. 579, 600-01 (1993) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
==Works==
==Works==
* [http://lc.org/071218TheNotionofaLivingConstitution.doc.pdf The Notion of a Living Constitution] (PDF)
* [http://lc.org/071218TheNotionofaLivingConstitution.doc.pdf The Notion of a Living Constitution] (PDF)