- Table View
- List View
Judicial Independence in Transition (Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht #233)
by Anja Seibert-FohrStrengthening the rule of law has become a key factor for the transition to democracy and the protection of human rights. Though its significance has materialized in international standard setting, the question of implementation is largely unexplored. This book describes judicial independence as a central aspect of the rule of law in different stages of transition to democracy. The collection of state-specific studies explores the legal situation of judiciaries in twenty states from North America, over Western, Central and South-Eastern Europe to post-Soviet states and engages in a comparative legal analysis. Through a detailed account of the current situation it takes stocks, considers advances in and shortcomings of judicial reform and offers advice for future strategies. The book shows that the implementation of judicial independence requires continuous efforts, not only in countries in transition but also in established democracies which are confronted with ever new challenges.
Judicial Independence Under Threat (Proceedings of the British Academy #250)
by Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos and Yvonne McdermottJudicial independence is increasingly under threat. The rise of populism risks undermining the separation of powers, with some politicians, media outlets and members of the public taking aim at judges, labelling them as part of the establishment and the elite, the 'enemies of the people'. Judicial Independence Under Threat seeks to situate these contemporary challenges to judicial independence in their proper legal, philosophical, political and historical contexts. It brings academic scholars from a variety of disciplines together with judges, politicians and legal professionals and asks what core shared values of our legal and political systems judicial independence seeks to protect, and how threats to that independence can be protected against. What can we learn from comparative, historical, political, philosophical, and legal insights on the separation of powers, and what means can we discover to prevent against challenges to the independence of judges in times of crisis?
Judicial Law-Making in European Constitutional Courts (ISSN)
by Monika Florczak-WThis book analyses the specificity of the law-making activity of European constitutional courts. The main hypothesis is that currently constitutional courts are positive legislators whose position in the system of State organs needs to be redefined.The book covers the analysis of the law-making activity of four constitutional courts in Western countries: Germany, Italy, Spain, and France; and six constitutional courts in Central–East European countries: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Latvia, and Bulgaria; as well as two international courts: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The work thus identifies the mutual interactions between national constitutional courts and international tribunals in terms of their law-making activity. The chosen countries include constitutional courts which have been recently captured by populist governments and subordinated to political powers. Therefore, one of the purposes of the book is to identify the change in the law-making activity of those courts and to compare it with the activity of constitutional courts from countries in which democracy is not viewed as being under threat. Written by national experts, each chapter addresses a series of set questions allowing accessible and meaningful comparison.The book will be a valuable resource for students, academics, and policy-makers working in the areas of constitutional law and politics.
Judicial Law-Making in European Constitutional Courts (ISSN)
by Monika Florczak-Wą TorThis book analyses the specificity of the law-making activity of European constitutional courts. The main hypothesis is that currently constitutional courts are positive legislators whose position in the system of State organs needs to be redefined.The book covers the analysis of the law-making activity of four constitutional courts in Western countries: Germany, Italy, Spain, and France; and six constitutional courts in Central–East European countries: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Latvia, and Bulgaria; as well as two international courts: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The work thus identifies the mutual interactions between national constitutional courts and international tribunals in terms of their law-making activity. The chosen countries include constitutional courts which have been recently captured by populist governments and subordinated to political powers. Therefore, one of the purposes of the book is to identify the change in the law-making activity of those courts and to compare it with the activity of constitutional courts from countries in which democracy is not viewed as being under threat. Written by national experts, each chapter addresses a series of set questions allowing accessible and meaningful comparison.The book will be a valuable resource for students, academics, and policy-makers working in the areas of constitutional law and politics.
Judicial Law-Making in Post-Soviet Russia
by Alexander VereshchaginA novel and incisive investigation of the role of judicial precedents and customs in Russian law, this book examines the trends in the development of judge-made law in Russian civil law since the demise of the Soviet Union. Exploring the interrelated propositions that a certain creative element is intrinsic to the judicial function in modern legal systems, which are normally shaped by both legislators and judges and that the Russian legal system is not an exception to this rule, the author argues that the rejection or acceptance of judge-made law can no longer be sufficient grounds for distinguishing between common law and civil law systems for the purposes of comparative analysis. Divided into six chapters, it covers: the principles applied by judges when interpreting legal acts; analyzing a number of academic writings on this subject the boundaries of the realm of judge-made law and the problem of 'hard cases' and the factors, which make them 'hard' a taxonomy of forms in which Russian courts effectuate their law-creation functions current policies of courts in legal and socio-political matters joint-stock societies and arbitrazh courts. Estimating the degree of creativity within different branches of the Russian judiciary and explaining the difference in the approaches of various courts as well as setting-out proposals as to how the discrepancies in judicial practice can be avoided, Judicial Law-Making in Post-Soviet Russia is invaluable reading for all students of international law, comparative law, legal skills, method and systems and jurisprudence and philosophy of law.
Judicial Law-Making in Post-Soviet Russia
by Alexander VereshchaginA novel and incisive investigation of the role of judicial precedents and customs in Russian law, this book examines the trends in the development of judge-made law in Russian civil law since the demise of the Soviet Union. Exploring the interrelated propositions that a certain creative element is intrinsic to the judicial function in modern legal systems, which are normally shaped by both legislators and judges and that the Russian legal system is not an exception to this rule, the author argues that the rejection or acceptance of judge-made law can no longer be sufficient grounds for distinguishing between common law and civil law systems for the purposes of comparative analysis. Divided into six chapters, it covers: the principles applied by judges when interpreting legal acts; analyzing a number of academic writings on this subject the boundaries of the realm of judge-made law and the problem of 'hard cases' and the factors, which make them 'hard' a taxonomy of forms in which Russian courts effectuate their law-creation functions current policies of courts in legal and socio-political matters joint-stock societies and arbitrazh courts. Estimating the degree of creativity within different branches of the Russian judiciary and explaining the difference in the approaches of various courts as well as setting-out proposals as to how the discrepancies in judicial practice can be avoided, Judicial Law-Making in Post-Soviet Russia is invaluable reading for all students of international law, comparative law, legal skills, method and systems and jurisprudence and philosophy of law.
Judicial Leadership: A New Strategic Approach
by Stephen Hardy Ernest RyderWe live in an era of economic austerity and political uncertainty. This has profound implications for all areas of publicly funded services; the justice system is no exception. During such times, the judiciary must remain steadfast in maintaining their independence irrespective of any funding model. Professor Hardy and Sir Ryder set out a vision for the Justice system that takes a strategic approach to the legal system, explicitly based on national self-interest and commercial effectiveness. They argue that, in striving for such a strategic approach to the justice system, there should not be separate access to justice and business reliance on the Rule of Law, as if they are separate worlds. The authors advocate an approach enabling access to justice to be efficient as well as effective, evidence based and founded on solid analysis of needs and capabilities. This new strategic approach would therefore be to ensure that the Judiciary, as 'one judiciary' is equipped and skilled as proficiently as it possible and as aligned and as effective in its leadership. The authors bring unique expertise to the pursuit of 'one judiciary', carefully and thoroughly analysing how such a system would work in theory and in practice. This revolutionary monograph promises to be a defining text in the field of judicial leadership. It is essential reading for all Judicial Office Holders, legal policy makers, legal practitioners and academics, and for all those with an interest in human resources, business and management, psychology, and law.
Judicial Leadership: A New Strategic Approach
by Ernest Ryder Stephen HardyWe live in an era of economic austerity and political uncertainty. This has profound implications for all areas of publicly funded services; the justice system is no exception. During such times, the judiciary must remain steadfast in maintaining their independence irrespective of any funding model. Professor Hardy and Sir Ryder set out a vision for the Justice system that takes a strategic approach to the legal system, explicitly based on national self-interest and commercial effectiveness. They argue that, in striving for such a strategic approach to the justice system, there should not be separate access to justice and business reliance on the Rule of Law, as if they are separate worlds. The authors advocate an approach enabling access to justice to be efficient as well as effective, evidence based and founded on solid analysis of needs and capabilities. This new strategic approach would therefore be to ensure that the Judiciary, as 'one judiciary' is equipped and skilled as proficiently as it possible and as aligned and as effective in its leadership. The authors bring unique expertise to the pursuit of 'one judiciary', carefully and thoroughly analysing how such a system would work in theory and in practice. This revolutionary monograph promises to be a defining text in the field of judicial leadership. It is essential reading for all Judicial Office Holders, legal policy makers, legal practitioners and academics, and for all those with an interest in human resources, business and management, psychology, and law.
The Judicial Mind: A Festschrift for Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore
by Brice Dickson and Conor McCormickThis collection of essays is a tribute to Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, who died aged 72 on 1 December 2020 after having retired from the UK Supreme Court just two months earlier. Brian Kerr was appointed as a judge of the High Court of Northern Ireland in 1993. He became the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in 2004 before being elevated to a peerage and appointed as the last Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in June 2009. Four months later, as Lord Kerr, he moved from the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to the UK Supreme Court where, after exactly 11 years, he concluded his distinguished judicial career as the longest-serving Justice to date. During his career he established an exceptional reputation for independence of thought, fairness and humanitarianism. Lord Kerr's judicial mind has inspired and influenced a significant number of scholars and jurists throughout the UK and beyond. In this book, his unique brand of jurisprudence is examined alongside a catalogue of broader issues in which he displayed a keen interest during his lifetime. The volume includes topical contributions from a range of legal experts in Britain and Ireland. Lord Kerr's particular interest in public law, human rights law, criminal law, and family law is featured prominently, but so too is the importance of his dissenting judgments, some influential jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (where he sat on many occasions), the legacy of his influence on the law and legal system of Northern Ireland and the significance of his place in the historical development of judicial roles and responsibilities more generally.
The Judicial Mind: A Festschrift for Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore
This collection of essays is a tribute to Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, who died aged 72 on 1 December 2020 after having retired from the UK Supreme Court just two months earlier. Brian Kerr was appointed as a judge of the High Court of Northern Ireland in 1993. He became the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in 2004 before being elevated to a peerage and appointed as the last Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in June 2009. Four months later, as Lord Kerr, he moved from the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to the UK Supreme Court where, after exactly 11 years, he concluded his distinguished judicial career as the longest-serving Justice to date. During his career he established an exceptional reputation for independence of thought, fairness and humanitarianism. Lord Kerr's judicial mind has inspired and influenced a significant number of scholars and jurists throughout the UK and beyond. In this book, his unique brand of jurisprudence is examined alongside a catalogue of broader issues in which he displayed a keen interest during his lifetime. The volume includes topical contributions from a range of legal experts in Britain and Ireland. Lord Kerr's particular interest in public law, human rights law, criminal law, and family law is featured prominently, but so too is the importance of his dissenting judgments, some influential jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (where he sat on many occasions), the legacy of his influence on the law and legal system of Northern Ireland and the significance of his place in the historical development of judicial roles and responsibilities more generally.
Judicial Nominations
by Neal DevinsOn January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade. Holding that a woman’s substantive due process right to terminate her pregnancy in the early months outweighed state interests in maternal health and fetal protection, the Court struck down a Texas law permitting abortions only to save the life of the mother. This series is divided into three volumes, with each part containing multiple case studies. Volume One (two books) considers legislative initiatives; Volume Two (two books) reviews executive initiatives; and Volume Three (one book) examines judicial nominations. Abortion funding, clinic access legislation, freedom of choice and human life legislative proposals, and proposed constitutional amendments are considered in Part One. Presidential positions, federal family planning regulation (domestic and international), fetal tissue research, and governmental briefs and arguments in abortion-related Supreme Court litigation are the subject of Part Two.First published in 1995. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.
Judicial Nominations (Federal Abortion Politics Ser. #Vol. 3)
by Neal Devins Wendy L. WatsonOn January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade. Holding that a woman’s substantive due process right to terminate her pregnancy in the early months outweighed state interests in maternal health and fetal protection, the Court struck down a Texas law permitting abortions only to save the life of the mother. This series is divided into three volumes, with each part containing multiple case studies. Volume One (two books) considers legislative initiatives; Volume Two (two books) reviews executive initiatives; and Volume Three (one book) examines judicial nominations. Abortion funding, clinic access legislation, freedom of choice and human life legislative proposals, and proposed constitutional amendments are considered in Part One. Presidential positions, federal family planning regulation (domestic and international), fetal tissue research, and governmental briefs and arguments in abortion-related Supreme Court litigation are the subject of Part Two.First published in 1995. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, some saw the decision as a textbook example of neutral judicial decision making, noting that a Republican Chief Justice joined the Court’s Democratic appointees to uphold most provisions of the ACA. Others characterized the decision as the latest example of partisan justice and cited the actions of a bloc of the Court’s Republican appointees, who voted to strike down the statute in its entirety. Still others argued that the ACA’s fate ultimately hinged not on the Court but on the outcome of the 2012 election. These interpretations reflect larger stories about judicial politics that have emerged in polarized America. Are judges neutral legal umpires, unaccountable partisan activists, or political actors whose decisions conform to—rather than challenge—the democratic will? Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Thomas M. Keck argues that, while each of these stories captures part of the significance of judicial politics in polarized times, each is also misleading. Despite judges’ claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges “tyrants in robes,” undermining democratic values by imposing their own preferences. Just as often, judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction. As for the argument that the courts are powerless institutions, Keck shows that their decisions have profound political effects. And, while advocates on both the left and right engage constantly in litigation to achieve their ends, neither side has consistently won. Ultimately, Keck argues, judges respond not simply as umpires, activists, or political actors, but in light of distinctive judicial values and practices.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, some saw the decision as a textbook example of neutral judicial decision making, noting that a Republican Chief Justice joined the Court’s Democratic appointees to uphold most provisions of the ACA. Others characterized the decision as the latest example of partisan justice and cited the actions of a bloc of the Court’s Republican appointees, who voted to strike down the statute in its entirety. Still others argued that the ACA’s fate ultimately hinged not on the Court but on the outcome of the 2012 election. These interpretations reflect larger stories about judicial politics that have emerged in polarized America. Are judges neutral legal umpires, unaccountable partisan activists, or political actors whose decisions conform to—rather than challenge—the democratic will? Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Thomas M. Keck argues that, while each of these stories captures part of the significance of judicial politics in polarized times, each is also misleading. Despite judges’ claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges “tyrants in robes,” undermining democratic values by imposing their own preferences. Just as often, judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction. As for the argument that the courts are powerless institutions, Keck shows that their decisions have profound political effects. And, while advocates on both the left and right engage constantly in litigation to achieve their ends, neither side has consistently won. Ultimately, Keck argues, judges respond not simply as umpires, activists, or political actors, but in light of distinctive judicial values and practices.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, some saw the decision as a textbook example of neutral judicial decision making, noting that a Republican Chief Justice joined the Court’s Democratic appointees to uphold most provisions of the ACA. Others characterized the decision as the latest example of partisan justice and cited the actions of a bloc of the Court’s Republican appointees, who voted to strike down the statute in its entirety. Still others argued that the ACA’s fate ultimately hinged not on the Court but on the outcome of the 2012 election. These interpretations reflect larger stories about judicial politics that have emerged in polarized America. Are judges neutral legal umpires, unaccountable partisan activists, or political actors whose decisions conform to—rather than challenge—the democratic will? Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Thomas M. Keck argues that, while each of these stories captures part of the significance of judicial politics in polarized times, each is also misleading. Despite judges’ claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges “tyrants in robes,” undermining democratic values by imposing their own preferences. Just as often, judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction. As for the argument that the courts are powerless institutions, Keck shows that their decisions have profound political effects. And, while advocates on both the left and right engage constantly in litigation to achieve their ends, neither side has consistently won. Ultimately, Keck argues, judges respond not simply as umpires, activists, or political actors, but in light of distinctive judicial values and practices.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, some saw the decision as a textbook example of neutral judicial decision making, noting that a Republican Chief Justice joined the Court’s Democratic appointees to uphold most provisions of the ACA. Others characterized the decision as the latest example of partisan justice and cited the actions of a bloc of the Court’s Republican appointees, who voted to strike down the statute in its entirety. Still others argued that the ACA’s fate ultimately hinged not on the Court but on the outcome of the 2012 election. These interpretations reflect larger stories about judicial politics that have emerged in polarized America. Are judges neutral legal umpires, unaccountable partisan activists, or political actors whose decisions conform to—rather than challenge—the democratic will? Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Thomas M. Keck argues that, while each of these stories captures part of the significance of judicial politics in polarized times, each is also misleading. Despite judges’ claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges “tyrants in robes,” undermining democratic values by imposing their own preferences. Just as often, judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction. As for the argument that the courts are powerless institutions, Keck shows that their decisions have profound political effects. And, while advocates on both the left and right engage constantly in litigation to achieve their ends, neither side has consistently won. Ultimately, Keck argues, judges respond not simply as umpires, activists, or political actors, but in light of distinctive judicial values and practices.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, some saw the decision as a textbook example of neutral judicial decision making, noting that a Republican Chief Justice joined the Court’s Democratic appointees to uphold most provisions of the ACA. Others characterized the decision as the latest example of partisan justice and cited the actions of a bloc of the Court’s Republican appointees, who voted to strike down the statute in its entirety. Still others argued that the ACA’s fate ultimately hinged not on the Court but on the outcome of the 2012 election. These interpretations reflect larger stories about judicial politics that have emerged in polarized America. Are judges neutral legal umpires, unaccountable partisan activists, or political actors whose decisions conform to—rather than challenge—the democratic will? Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Thomas M. Keck argues that, while each of these stories captures part of the significance of judicial politics in polarized times, each is also misleading. Despite judges’ claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges “tyrants in robes,” undermining democratic values by imposing their own preferences. Just as often, judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction. As for the argument that the courts are powerless institutions, Keck shows that their decisions have profound political effects. And, while advocates on both the left and right engage constantly in litigation to achieve their ends, neither side has consistently won. Ultimately, Keck argues, judges respond not simply as umpires, activists, or political actors, but in light of distinctive judicial values and practices.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, some saw the decision as a textbook example of neutral judicial decision making, noting that a Republican Chief Justice joined the Court’s Democratic appointees to uphold most provisions of the ACA. Others characterized the decision as the latest example of partisan justice and cited the actions of a bloc of the Court’s Republican appointees, who voted to strike down the statute in its entirety. Still others argued that the ACA’s fate ultimately hinged not on the Court but on the outcome of the 2012 election. These interpretations reflect larger stories about judicial politics that have emerged in polarized America. Are judges neutral legal umpires, unaccountable partisan activists, or political actors whose decisions conform to—rather than challenge—the democratic will? Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Thomas M. Keck argues that, while each of these stories captures part of the significance of judicial politics in polarized times, each is also misleading. Despite judges’ claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges “tyrants in robes,” undermining democratic values by imposing their own preferences. Just as often, judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction. As for the argument that the courts are powerless institutions, Keck shows that their decisions have profound political effects. And, while advocates on both the left and right engage constantly in litigation to achieve their ends, neither side has consistently won. Ultimately, Keck argues, judges respond not simply as umpires, activists, or political actors, but in light of distinctive judicial values and practices.
The Judicial Politics of Economic Integration: The Andean Court as an Engine of Development
by Osvaldo SaldiasThe Judicial Politics of Economic Integration analyses development strategies and regional integration in the Andean Community (the former Andean Pact), focusing on the establishment of the Andean Court of Justice and its case law, as well as the intellectual underpinnings that made such an impressive reform possible. The court is a transplant taken from the European integration process, and it materializes the visions, expectations, and dreams of the transnational development movement of "integration through law". The book discusses the outcomes of the Court in light of the debates about judicial reform in the process of development and regional integration. Although clearly confirming several earlier claims that "one size does not fit all", Osvaldo Saldias provides new insights into how legal transplants adapt and evolve, and how we can learn much more about legal reform from a project that presumably failed than from successful copies. The Andean Court of Justice is a remarkable example of an institution capable of adapting to political and economic challenges; therefore, in times of a severe European economic crisis we should not forget that we might improve our understanding of European integration by looking at developments in other regions. An interesting new study with an international focus, this book will be a fascinating read for students and scholars of Law and Latin American Studies.
The Judicial Politics of Economic Integration: The Andean Court as an Engine of Development
by Osvaldo SaldiasThe Judicial Politics of Economic Integration analyses development strategies and regional integration in the Andean Community (the former Andean Pact), focusing on the establishment of the Andean Court of Justice and its case law, as well as the intellectual underpinnings that made such an impressive reform possible. The court is a transplant taken from the European integration process, and it materializes the visions, expectations, and dreams of the transnational development movement of "integration through law". The book discusses the outcomes of the Court in light of the debates about judicial reform in the process of development and regional integration. Although clearly confirming several earlier claims that "one size does not fit all", Osvaldo Saldias provides new insights into how legal transplants adapt and evolve, and how we can learn much more about legal reform from a project that presumably failed than from successful copies. The Andean Court of Justice is a remarkable example of an institution capable of adapting to political and economic challenges; therefore, in times of a severe European economic crisis we should not forget that we might improve our understanding of European integration by looking at developments in other regions. An interesting new study with an international focus, this book will be a fascinating read for students and scholars of Law and Latin American Studies.
Judicial Power And American Character: Censoring Ourselves In An Anxious Age
by Robert F. NagelIn this highly original book, Robert Nagel demonstrates how contemporary constitutional politics reflect the moral character of American culture. He persuasively argues that judicial decisions embody wider social tendenceies towards moral evasiveness, privatization, and opportunism. Constitutional interpretation, he urges, is often an effort to stifle political disagreement and, ultimately, to censor our own beliefs and traditions. Nagel ranges over such controversial topics as the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, local resistance to abortion rights, political correctness on campus, and judicial decisions dealing with pornography, flag burning, gay rights, school prayer, and racial desegregation. Crossing conventional political and philosophical lines, the analysis is surprising and provocative. Nagel sees fundamental similarities between liberals like Ronald Dworkin and conservatives like Bork. He finds judicial arrogance in jurists as different as William Brennan and Sandra O'Connor. Clearly written and forcefully argued, this work is an audacious examination of judicial power as an integral part of our increasingly anxious and intolerant society.
Judicial Power and American Character: Censoring Ourselves in an Anxious Age
by Robert F. NagelIn this highly original book, Robert Nagel demonstrates how contemporary constitutional politics reflect the moral character of American culture. He persuasively argues that judicial decisions embody wider social tendenceies towards moral evasiveness, privatization, and opportunism. Constitutional interpretation, he urges, is often an effort to stifle political disagreement and, ultimately, to censor our own beliefs and traditions. Nagel ranges over such controversial topics as the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, local resistance to abortion rights, political correctness on campus, and judicial decisions dealing with pornography, flag burning, gay rights, school prayer, and racial desegregation. Crossing conventional political and philosophical lines, the analysis is surprising and provocative. Nagel sees fundamental similarities between liberals like Ronald Dworkin and conservatives like Bork. He finds judicial arrogance in jurists as different as William Brennan and Sandra O'Connor. Clearly written and forcefully argued, this work is an audacious examination of judicial power as an integral part of our increasingly anxious and intolerant society.
Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics
by Stanley I. KutlerA study of the Supreme Court in the wake of the Dred Scott decision. This book investigates the political and public standing of the Supreme Court following the Dred Scott decision. Arguing against interpretations by previous historians, Kutler asserts instead that the "Chase Court" was neither enfeebled by the decision itself, nor by congressional Republicans during reconstruction. Instead, Kutler suggests that during reconstruction, the Court was characterized by forcefulness and judicious restraint rather than timidity and cowardice, holding a creative and determining role rather than abdicating its rightful powers. This volume assembles a series of essays by Kutler arguing for this characterization. Provocative and persuasive at turns, this collection of essays provides a bold and innovative reinterpretation of the Supreme Court after the Civil War.
Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism (Applied Legal Philosophy)
by Tom D. Campbell Jeffrey GoldsworthyIn this book, a distinguished international group of legal theorists re-examine legal positivism as a prescriptive political theory and consider its implications for the constitutionally defined roles of legislatures and courts. The issues are illustrated with recent developments in Australian constitutional law.
Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism (Applied Legal Philosophy)
by Tom Campbell and Jeffrey GoldsworthyIn this book, a distinguished international group of legal theorists re-examine legal positivism as a prescriptive political theory and consider its implications for the constitutionally defined roles of legislatures and courts. The issues are illustrated with recent developments in Australian constitutional law.