Suchergebnisse

Thirty-five years ago the American historian, Henry Steele Commager, wrote that: "Nothing in all history succeeded like America." He was not speaking simply of the success of our unique political experiment or of our remarkable productivity, wealth, and material prosperity, but more of the flowering of the human spirit under the system of freedom that we established two centuries ago. Why was this so? The real meaning can be understood better as we see oppressed people in all parts of the world making a beaten path to our shores—the "Boat People" of Vietnam and Cambodia, and the newer "Boat People" from Cuba. And now, just weeks ago, the world has witnessed again the unquenchable hunger of people for freedom. With the Soviet Union's tanks and troops still in Polish memories, hundreds of thousands of Poles risked their lives for just a few of the freedoms we take for granted.

THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES SELECTED DECISIONS OF THE BURGER COURT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS COURT IS PRESENTING A NEW VISION OF FEDERALISM. MORE SPECIFICALLY, HAS THE BURGER COURT, AS COMPARED TO THE POST1937 COURTS, DEVELOPED A NEW THEORETICAL CONSTRUCT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE STATES IN RELATION TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT ITS DECISIONS IN CERTAIN KEY AREAS OF PROTECTING AND INCREASING STATE POWER IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM?

Changes in the composition of the Supreme Court perhaps inevitably invite speculation about whether and how the Court will change, and what direction it will take in the future. The move of William Rehnquist from associate justice to chief justice and the addition of Antonin Scalia certainly alters the chemistry of the Court. These changes may also have a profound impact on the Court's place in American government during the rest of this century.There is no doubt that the Court will change. Differences are already apparent during oral arguments. Rehnquist is sharper, more thoughtful, more commanding and wittier than his predecessor in the center chair. And from the far right of the bench, Scalia almost bubbles over with energy and questions for counsel. No less revealing is that in the week before the start of the 1986–87 term on the first Monday in October, Rehnquist managed to get the justices to dispose of over 1,000 cases (granting 22 and denying or otherwise disposing of the rest). He did so in only two days, whereas it usually took Burger more than twice as long to get through about the same number.

Changes in the composition of the Supreme Court perhaps inevitably invite speculation about whether and how the Court will change, and what direction it will take in the future. The move of William Rehnquist from associate justice to chief justice and the addition of Antonin Scalia certainly alters the chemistry of the Court. These changes may also have a profound impact on the Court's place in American government during the rest of this century.There is no doubt that the Court will change. Differences are already apparent during oral arguments. Rehnquist is sharper, more thoughtful, more commanding and wittier than his predecessor in the center chair. And from the far right of the bench, Scalia almost bubbles over with energy and questions for counsel. No less revealing is that in the week before the start of the 1986–87 term on the first Monday in October, Rehnquist managed to get the justices to dispose of over 1,000 cases (granting 22 and denying or otherwise disposing of the rest). He did so in only two days, whereas it usually took Burger more than twice as long to get through about the same number.

ARTICLE REPORTS ON RESEARCH WHICH FOCUSES ON THE NATURE OF CONFLICT OVER REVIEW DECISIONS AS REPRESENTED BY DISSENTS TO DENIALS OF REVIEW ON THE US SUPREME COURT. THREE TYPES OF CHANGE IN CONFLICT PATTERNS OVER TIME ARE INVESTIGATED: CHANGE IN THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH DISSENT CASES OCCUR; CHANGE IN CONFLICT PATTERNS EXHIBITED BY THE WARREN COURT; AND CHANGE IN THE 'HOLDOVER JUSTICES' BEHAVIOR.