Law and Politics

2019 ◽  
pp. 785-882
Author(s):  
G. Edward White
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
The Political ◽  
Electoral Process ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Question

Bush v. Gore, when it was first decided, was widely criticized by commentators as an unjustifiable intervention by the Supreme Court into the Florida electoral process in the 2000 presidential election. Two decades later, the case seems much less significant, and arguably less controversial. The chapter traces the “journey” of the Supreme Court toward Bush v. Gore, which consisted of a combination of its abandoning the “political question” doctrine, which posited that the Court should avoid reviewing legislative decisions affecting the redistricting of voters in political elections, and the unique circumstances of the 2000 presidential election in Florida and Florida’s electoral processes.

scholarly journals THE NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT AND THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-145
Author(s):  
Ekokoi Solomon
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Fourth Republic ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
First Republic ◽  
Political Question

This paper examines the attitude of the Supreme Court of Nigeria towards the political question doctrine. It interrogates the decisions of the Court in selected landmark cases involving political questions since the First Republic to the Fourth Republic which commenced in 1999. The paper identifies three core approaches espoused by the Court in cases involving political questions – the deference approach, the necessity approach and the avoidance approach. This paper argues that in a constitutional democracy, it is inevitable – considering that the Court is both a political and a legal institution – that the Court, like in other jurisdictions such as Germany, India, South Africa and the United States, will be called upon to adjudicate cases involving political questions. As such, the paper recommends that the Court openly asserts the ‘politicality’ of its decisions, whether they are predicated on the need to defer to the political branches, exigency/necessity or to avoid the political questions brought before it.

scholarly journals In NLRB Recess Appointments Case, Roberts Court Can Now Show It Knows How to Exercise Judicial Restraint

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Labor Relations ◽  
The Political ◽  
Obama Administration ◽  
National Labor Relations Board ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Full Complement ◽  
Roberts Court ◽  
Political Question

If the Senate confirms a full complement of members for the National Labor Relations Board, the Obama administration should ask the Supreme Court in Noel Canning v. NLRB to remand the case, without decision, to be re-heard by the NLRB. The court should grant the request, showing a judicial restraint for which the Roberts bench is not known — and returning the recess appointments controversy to the elected branches of government, where it belongs. If the SG does not pursue this course, the Court should use the political question doctrine to avoid unnecessary judicial interference with the dynamics of the President's and Senate's shared appointments power.

The tenure of English judges

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. H. McIlwain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Object ◽  
William Iii ◽  
Science Association

At the meeting of the Political Science Association last year, in the general discussion, on the subject of the recall, I was surprised and I must admit, a little shocked to hear our recall of judges compared to the English removal of judges on address of the houses of parliament.If we must compare unlike things, rather than place the recall beside the theory or the practice of the joint address, I should even prefer to compare it to a bill of attainder.In history, theory and practice the recall as we have it and the English removal by joint address have hardly anything in common, save the same general object.Though I may not (as I do not) believe in the recall of judges, this paper concerns itself not at all with that opinion, but only with the history and nature of the tenure of English judges, particularly as affected by the possibility of removal on address. I believe a study of that history will show that any attempt to force the address into a close resemblance to the recall, whether for the purpose of furthering or of discrediting the latter, is utterly misleading.In the history of the tenure of English judges the act of 12 and 13 William III, subsequently known as the Act of Settlement, is the greatest landmark. The history of the tenure naturally divides into two parts at the year 1711. In dealing with both parts, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself strictly to the judges who compose what since 1873 has been known as the supreme court of judicature.

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

Judicial Power in a Political World

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Crowe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Rhetoric ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
Institution Building ◽  
Political Arena ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Relationship

This concluding chapter synthesizes the book's main findings about the architectonic politics of judicial institution building and contextualizes them within contemporary debates. It also reflects upon the lessons of the more than 200-year historical lineage of the institutional judiciary for our understanding of judicial power in America. More specifically, it considers the place of the federal judiciary in America's past and future in empirical and normative terms, respectively. It argues that both political rhetoric and academic exegesis about the Supreme Court embody a fundamentally incorrect presumption about the judiciary being external to politics, and that such presumption leads to a series of misconceptions about the relationship between judicial power and democratic politics. The chapter offers a conception that not only locates the judicial branch squarely within the political arena but also places substantially greater emphasis on its cooperation rather than conflict with other actors and institutions in that arena.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Local State ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Entire Nation ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The Impact

This book examines the impact of Supreme Court cases from Texas on the entire nation. It argues that the most important Supreme Court cases have originated in Texas, which help explain why it is Texas and not California that provides breadth and depth to constitutional adjudication. Texas litigants, lawyers, politicians, and judges all play important roles in the underlying interplay of law and politics at the local, state, and national levels. In all its facets, Texas offers a window to all constitutional law and the Supreme Court. The book shows that Texas's impact literally started at the beginning by precipitating a debate over national powers and then a war with Mexico, and that the fraught relationship between Texas, the nation, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court in the century and a half since Texas v. White has produced more constitutional law than any other state.

DIN-U DEVLET ALL OVER AGAIN? THE POLITICS OF MILITARY SECULARISM AND RELIGIOUS MILITARISM IN TURKEY FOLLOWING THE 1980 COUP

2002 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Kaplan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Political ◽  
Military Establishment ◽  
Turkish Republic ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Parties ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
Two Sides

Current discussions on the political developments in Turkey frequently frame the struggles between the military and religious parties as a war between secularism and Islam and draw out incommensurable differences between the two sides. Indeed, the military establishment, which casts itself as the guardian of the secular republic, succeeded in 1997 in having the Supreme Court ban the Welfare Party, the first openly religious party ever to form a government in the Turkish Republic. The generals justified this seemingly undemocratic move by claiming that that this party was trying to reinstate the sacred shari[ayin]a law.

The developmental history of solitary and supermax confinement: toward a phenomenology of the state of exception

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Polizzi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Order ◽  
State Of Exception ◽  
The Political ◽  
Developmental History ◽  
Giorgio Agamben ◽  
Attitudes And Behaviors ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of

The phenomenology of solitary and supermax confinement reflects what Giorgio Agamben has defined as the state of exception. The state of exception is defined as the blurring of the legal and political order, which constructs a zone of indifference for those forced to endure this situation. This notion of the state of exception can be applied to the zone of indifference created by the Supreme Court, which seems unwilling to outlaw this harmful practice relative to 8th Amendment protections prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment and the political order which is all too inclined to continue use strategy. One of the central aspects of this “ecology of harm”, is the way in which the very structures of this type of confinement, helps to invite and legitimize abusive attitudes and behaviors in penitentiary staff.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document