Suchergebnisse

Many critics attack federal judges as anti-democratic elitists, activists out of step with the mainstream of American thought. But others argue that judges should stand alone as the ultimate guardians of American values, placing principle before the views of the people. In The Most Democratic Branch, Jeffrey Rosen disagrees with both assertions. Contrary to what interest groups may claim, he contends that, from the days of John Marshall right up to the present, the federal courts by and large have reflected the opinions of the mainstream. More important, he argues that the Supreme Court is most successful when it defers to the constitutional views of the American people, as represented most notably by Congress and the Presidency. And on the rare occasion when they departed from the consensus, the result has often been a disaster. To illustrate, Rosen provides a penetrating look at some of the most important Supreme Court cases in American history--cases involving racial equality, affirmative action, abortion, gay rights and gay marriage, the right to die, electoral disputes, and civil liberties in wartime. Rosen shows that the most notorious constitutional decisions in American history--the ones that have been most strenuously criticized, such as Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade--have gone against mainstream opinion. By contrast, the most successful decisions--from Marbury v. Madison to Brown v. Board of Education--have avoided imposing constitutional principles over the wishes of the people. Rosen concludes that the judiciary works best when it identifies the constitutional principles accepted by a majority of Americans, and enforces them unequivocally as fundamental law. Jeffrey Rosen is one of the most respected legal experts writing today, a regular contributor to The New York Times Magazine and the Legal Affairs Editor of The New Republic. The

What motivates political actors with diverging interests to respect the Supreme Court's authority? A popular answer is that the public serves as the guardian of judicial independence by punishing elected officials who undermine the justices. Curbing the Court challenges this claim, presenting a new theory of how we perceive the Supreme Court. Bartels and Johnston argue that, contrary to conventional wisdom, citizens are not principled defenders of the judiciary. Instead, they seek to limit the Court's power when it suits their political aims, and this inclination is heightened during times of sharp partisan polarization. Backed by a wealth of observational and experimental data, Bartels and Johnston push the conceptual, theoretical, and empirical boundaries of the study of public opinion of the courts. By connecting citizens to the strategic behavior of elites, this book offers fresh insights into the vulnerability of judicial institutions in an increasingly contentious era of American politics.

This ebook consists of a summary of the ideas, viewpoints and facts presented by Roy Moore and John Perry in their book 'So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny and the Battle for Religious Freedom'. This summary offers a concise overview of the entire book in less than 30 minutes reading time. However this work does not replace in any case Roy Moore's and John Perry's book.Moore and Perry explain the reasoning behind the decision to refuse the order of a federal judge to remove a Ten Commandment monument from the Alabama state court. They argue that government officials have the right and the obligation to acknowledge God as the foundation of American government and jurisprudence.

"Serial no. J-110-11." ; Shipping list no.: 2007-0243-P. ; Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.

A series of decisions by the US Supreme Court raises the question of whether the federal judiciary will help to induce a major shift toward decentralization. Despite the ambitious hopes of some observers & the desperate fears of others, there are reasons to doubt that the Court will implement such a program. The justices are unlikely to persist in protecting states' rights in part because of their own ambivalence & in part because the idea itself is too self-contradictory to support a consistent interpretive agenda. Even if the Court were to overcome these problems, it lacks the capacity to control the relevant behaviors & attitudes. The main potential political allies in a states' rights campaign -- state officials & populist dissenters -- are unlikely to have interests compatible with judicial norms or to be effective voices for federalism. In fact, general social & cultural conditions seem to favor further centralization. 16 References. Adapted from the source document.

Impact of the dominant political party on the US Supreme Court, 1828-1990.

"March 15, 1988." ; Shipping list no.: 89-301-P. ; Cover title: Report to the Attorney General, a new look at plurality decisions. ; Bibliography: p. 65-86. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Examines the interaction between politics and law in the context of recent abortion decisions.

Constitutional Dysfunction on Trial -- Contents -- Introduction: Systemic Constitutional Dysfunction -- Part 1: War Powers -- 1. War Is Justiciable, Until It Isn't -- 2. Suing to Save the War Powers Resolution -- Part 2: Legislative Processes -- 3. Legislative Processes Are Constitutional Questions -- 4. Courts Cannot Unknot Congress -- Part 3: More Executive Unilateralism -- 5. Silence Is Consent for the Modern Presidency -- 6. So Sue Him -- Conclusion: Lawful but Awful -- Acknowledgments -- Notes -- References -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y -- Z.