Judging Social Rights PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Judging Social Rights PDF full book. Access full book title Judging Social Rights by Jeff King. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Jeff King
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
ISBN: 1107008026
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 399
Get Book Here
Book Description
Jeff King argues in favour of constitutionalising social rights, and presents an incrementalist approach to judicial enforcement.
Author: Jeff King
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
ISBN: 1107008026
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 399
Get Book Here
Book Description
Jeff King argues in favour of constitutionalising social rights, and presents an incrementalist approach to judicial enforcement.
Author: Kate Stith
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
ISBN: 9780226774862
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 302
Get Book Here
Book Description
For two centuries, federal judges exercised wide discretion in criminal sentencing. In 1987 a complex bureaucratic apparatus termed Sentencing "Guidelines" was imposed on federal courts. FEAR OF JUDGING is the first full-scale history, analysis, and critique of the new sentencing regime, arguing that it sacrifices comprehensibility and common sense.
Author: Shawn Francis Peters
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 360
Get Book Here
Book Description
While millions of Americans fought the Nazis, liberty was under attack at home with the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses who were intimidated and even imprisoned for refusing to salute the flag or serve in the armed forces. This study explores their defence of their First Amendment rights.
Author: Stefan Kadelbach
Publisher: Springer
ISBN: 3319948482
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 663
Get Book Here
Book Description
This book attempts to establish how courts of general jurisdiction differ from specialized human rights courts in their approach to the implementation and development of international human rights. Why do courts of general jurisdiction face particular problems in relation to the application of international human rights law and why, in other cases, are they better placed than specialized human rights courts to act as guardians of international human rights? At the international level, this volume focusses on the International Court of Justice and courts of regional economic integration organizations in Europe, Latin America and Africa. With regard to the judicial implementation of international human rights and human rights decisions at the domestic level, the contributions analyze the requirements set by human rights treaties and offer a series of country studies on the practice of domestic courts in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. This book follows up on research undertaken by the International Human Rights Law Committee of the International Law Association. It includes the final Committee report as well as contributions by committee members and external experts.
Author: Kirstie M. McClure
Publisher: Cornell University Press
ISBN: 1501728660
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 340
Get Book Here
Book Description
Kirstie McClure offers a major reinterpretation of John Locke's thought that is important not only for the light it sheds on Locke, but also for the questions it raises about liberalism and rights-based theories of politics. Sensitive to the range of interpretative and political issues that Locke's work raises, McClure's analysis is impressive for its balance and subtlety, and for her command of the enormous literature on Locke. Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, between Two Tracts on Government of 1660 and Two Treatises on Government of 1690, Locke subjected the idea of civil power to increasing scrutiny. In one generation, he moved from supporting order for its own sake to defending resistance, and ended with a profoundly modern epistemology. McClure suggests that Locke's concepts of government by consent, equality, rights, and the rule of law were embedded in his theistic cosmology. While Locke may well have been a constitutionalist, his theoretical concerns were far broader than any legal or constitutional interpretation of his work might suggest. To make this claim, she explains, is to deny neither the significance of "rights" nor the importance of institutions and consent in Locke's theoretical production. Rather, it is to insist that such themes are merely parts of a more comprehensive theoretical project, the focus of which, bluntly stated in the Second Treatise, was "to understand Political Power right."
Author: Virginia A. Hettinger
Publisher: University of Virginia Press
ISBN: 9780813926971
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 172
Get Book Here
Book Description
Focusing on the behavioral aspects of disagreement within a panel and between the levels of the federal judicial hierarchy, the authors reveal the impact of individual attitudes or preferences on judicial decision-making, and hence on political divisions in the broader society.
Author: Pierre Hazan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 248
Get Book Here
Book Description
"Pierre Hazan, in a brilliant and erudite book beautifully written, analyzes the fascinating account of the judicial and cultural revolution that started after the end of the Cold War."---Le Monde Diplomatique --
Author: James L. Gibson
Publisher: Russell Sage Foundation
ISBN: 161044907X
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 379
Get Book Here
Book Description
Social scientists have convincingly documented soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality in the United States. Missing from this picture of rampant inequality, however, is any attention to the significant role of state law and courts in establishing policies that either ameliorate or exacerbate inequality. In Judging Inequality, political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson demonstrate the influential role of the fifty state supreme courts in shaping the widespread inequalities that define America today, focusing on court-made public policy on issues ranging from educational equity and adequacy to LGBT rights to access to justice to worker’s rights. Drawing on an analysis of an original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century, Judging Inequality documents two ways that state high courts have crafted policies relevant to inequality: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as “upperdogs”). The authors discover that whether court-sanctioned policies lead to greater or lesser inequality depends on the ideologies of the justices serving on these high benches, the policy preferences of their constituents (the people of their state), and the institutional structures that determine who becomes a judge as well as who decides whether those individuals remain in office. Gibson and Nelson decisively reject the conventional theory that state supreme courts tend to protect underdog litigants from the wrath of majorities. Instead, the authors demonstrate that the ideological compositions of state supreme courts most often mirror the dominant political coalition in their state at a given point in time. As a result, state supreme courts are unlikely to stand as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States, instead making decisions compatible with the preferences of political elites already in power. At least at the state high court level, the myth of judicial independence truly is a myth. Judging Inequality offers a comprehensive examination of the powerful role that state supreme courts play in shaping public policies pertinent to inequality. This volume is a landmark contribution to scholarly work on the intersection of American jurisprudence and inequality, one that essentially rewrites the “conventional wisdom” on the role of courts in America’s democracy.
Author: Robert A. Katzmann
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0199362149
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 184
Get Book Here
Book Description
In an ideal world, the laws of Congress--known as federal statutes--would always be clearly worded and easily understood by the judges tasked with interpreting them. But many laws feature ambiguous or even contradictory wording. How, then, should judges divine their meaning? Should they stick only to the text? To what degree, if any, should they consult aids beyond the statutes themselves? Are the purposes of lawmakers in writing law relevant? Some judges, such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe courts should look to the language of the statute and virtually nothing else. Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit respectfully disagrees. In Judging Statutes, Katzmann, who is a trained political scientist as well as a judge, argues that our constitutional system charges Congress with enacting laws; therefore, how Congress makes its purposes known through both the laws themselves and reliable accompanying materials should be respected. He looks at how the American government works, including how laws come to be and how various agencies construe legislation. He then explains the judicial process of interpreting and applying these laws through the demonstration of two interpretative approaches, purposivism (focusing on the purpose of a law) and textualism (focusing solely on the text of the written law). Katzmann draws from his experience to show how this process plays out in the real world, and concludes with some suggestions to promote understanding between the courts and Congress. When courts interpret the laws of Congress, they should be mindful of how Congress actually functions, how lawmakers signal the meaning of statutes, and what those legislators expect of courts construing their laws. The legislative record behind a law is in truth part of its foundation, and therefore merits consideration.
Author: J. Mark Ramseyer
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
ISBN: 0226703878
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 215
Get Book Here
Book Description
The role of the U.S. Supreme Court in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election raised questions in the minds of many Americans about the relationships between judges and political influence; the following years saw equally heated debates over the appropriate role of political ideology in selecting federal judges. Legal scholars have always debated these questions—asking, in effect, how much judicial systems operate on merit and principle and how much they are shaped by politics. The Japanese Constitution, like many others, requires that all judges be "independent in the exercise of their conscience and bound only by this Constitution and its laws." Consistent with this requirement, Japanese courts have long enjoyed a reputation for vigilant independence—an idea challenged only occasionally, and most often anecdotally. But in this book, J. Mark Ramseyer and Eric B. Rasmusen use the latest statistical techniques to examine whether that reputation always holds up to scrutiny—whether, and to what extent, the careers of lower court judges can be manipulated to political advantage. On the basis of careful econometric analysis of career data for hundreds of judges, Ramseyer and Rasmusen find that Japanese politics do influence judicial careers, discreetly and indirectly: judges who decide politically charged cases in ways favored by the ruling party enjoy better careers after their decisions than might otherwise be expected, while dissenting judges are more likely to find their careers hampered by assignments to less desirable positions. Ramseyer and Rasmusen's sophisticated yet accessible analysis has much to offer anyone interested in either judicial independence or the application of econometric techniques in the social sciences.
