Judicial Conservatism, Liberalism, Activism, Restraint, and Everything in Between

Corey Yung

Corey Rayburn Yung is a Professor at the University of Kansas School of Law. His scholarship primarily focuses on sexual violence, substantive criminal law, and judicial decision-making. Yung’s academic writings have been cited by state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Before Yung began his professorial career, he served as an associate for Shearman & Sterling in New York and clerked for the Honorable Michael J. Melloy of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Frank says:

    Thank you for this series. I recently went to an ELS workshop, and I was a bit surprised by the emphasis there on using extant quantitative data, rather than developing one’s own. By contrast, Ian Shapiro has complained that, in some “method-driven work . . . the construction of the problem is contaminated by the methods available to the researcher.”
    at http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8083.html

    Shapiro also states that when “esoteric forms of redescription are involved, they must elucidate the links to more familiar understandings of politics.” So I guess my question would be: is there a point at which a judge’s activism or ideology score would make them unfit to serve, or would cause us to question the legitimacy of decisions they contributed to?