“The Painful Duty of This Tribunal”

2019 ◽  
pp. 156-174
Author(s):  
David S. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Profession ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Personal Interest ◽  
Centennial Celebration ◽  
Laissez Faire ◽  
John Marshall ◽  
Opinion Writing

The emergence of McCulloch v. Maryland as a foundational case of constitutional law stemmed from several factors, each coming together on its own separate timeline, converging on the years 1895 to 1901. These factors included the personal interest in John Marshall’s jurisprudence held by Supreme Court justices John Marshall Harlan and Horace Gray; the emergence of an autonomous legal profession; the related transition from the Grand Style to a common-law style in constitutional opinion writing; the publication of Harvard Professor James Bradley Thayer’s first-ever constitutional law casebook; and the conservative judicial reaction against the Populist movement. Marshall was canonized in a 1901 “John Marshall Day” centennial celebration consisting of conservative and backward-looking speeches that used Marshall as a symbol to validate conservative judicial activism and laissez-faire jurisprudence.

Whence and Whither the Burger Court? Judicial Self-Restraint: A Beguiling Myth

1979 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-37
Author(s):  
Alpheus Thomas Mason
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Burger Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
John Marshall

Every Court is the product of its time, reflecting predilections of fallible men in black robes. While wearing the magical habiliments of the law, Supreme Court justices take sides on controversial issues. From John Marshall to Warren Burger, the Court has been the guardian of some particular interest and the promoter of preferred values. Thus judicial activism, of whatever orientation, involves a paradox at the heart of constitutional orthodoxy—the Supreme Court considered as the mouthpiece of self-interpreting, self-enforcing law.

scholarly journals JUDICIALIZAÇÃO E ATIVISMO JUDICIAL EM PERSPECTIVA: UMA ANÁLISE A PARTIR DAS EXPERIÊNCIAS DAS SUPREMAS CORTES DO BRASIL E DO CANADÁ

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (54) ◽  
pp. 425
Author(s):  
Edith Maria Barbosa RAMOS ◽  
Pedro Trovão do ROSÁRIO ◽  
Sara Barros Pereira de MIRANDA
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Theoretical Construction

RESUMOA presente pesquisa por escopo analisar os fenômenos da judicialização e do ativismo judicial a partir das experiências da Suprema Corte do Canadá e do Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro. Observou-se que, em ambos os países, tem havido, nas últimas décadas, uma contínua expansão da autoridade do Poder Judiciário e da sua atuação em temáticas de natureza política até então abordadas apenas pelos Poderes Legislativo e Executivo, o que pode ser evidenciado a partir da análise das decisões proferidas pelas Cortes Supremas dos dois países. Apesar das diferenças na arquitetura constitucional, ambas as Cortes atuam como condutoras do processo de expansão alcance do poder de suas estruturas judiciárias. O presente artigo foi desenvolvido a partir de levantamento bibliográfico em artigos obtidos em diferentes bancos de dados e indexadores, publicados na integra em português e inglês, acessados de forma gratuita. Foram selecionadas revistas científicas na área do Direito Constitucional Comparado com extratos elevados, qualis A e B. Utilizou-se, ainda, dados constantes em documentos oficiais e na legislação pertinente com recorte epistemológico e científico fundado na construção teórica contemporânea dos Direitos Fundamentais. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Judicialização; Ativismo Judicial; Suprema Corte do Canadá; Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro. ABSTRACTThis research by scope analyzes the phenomena of judicialization and judicial activism from the experiences of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Brazilian Supreme Court. It has been observed that, in both countries, there has been, in the last decades, a continuous expansion of the authority of the Judiciary Power and its action in themes of a political nature hitherto addressed only by the Legislative and Executive Powers, which can be evidenced by from the analysis of the decisions of the Supreme Courts of both countries. Despite differences in constitutional architecture, both courts act as drivers of the process of expanding the power of their judicial structures. This article was developed from a bibliographic survey in articles obtained in different databases and indexers, published in full in Portuguese and English, accessed for free. Scientific journals were selected in the area of Constitutional Law Compared with high extracts, qualis A and B. It was also used data in official documents and relevant legislation with epistemological and scientific basis based on the contemporary theoretical construction of Fundamental Rights. KEYWORDS: Judicialization; Judicial activism; Supreme Court of Canada; Brazilian Supreme Court.

scholarly journals El justice Oliver Wendell Holmes : «The great dissenter» de la supreme court

2010 ◽  
pp. 129
Author(s):  
Francisco Fernández Segado
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Oliver Wendell Holmes ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Laissez Faire ◽  
John Marshall

La dissenting opinion es una institución que ha sido a lo largo de dos siglos el sello del Poder Judicial en Norteamérica. El nombramiento de John Marshall como Presidente del Tribunal Supremo supuso el abandono de las seriatim opinions, una herencia inglesa, y su sustitución por las opinions of the Court. Del mismo modo, las dissenting opinions iban a aparecer bajo la Corte presidida por Marshall. El Juez Oliver Wendell Holmes es considerado como el «gran disidente» del Tribunal Supremo, no sólo por el elevado número de sus votos particulares, sino por su impacto y por su enorme trascendencia. En efecto, un porcentaje muy poco común de sus dissenting opinions llegaron a convertirse en Derecho. La Corte posterior a 1937 adoptó, efectivamente, el criterio requerido por el Juez Holmes en su clásica serie de disidencias sostenidas durante las tres primeras décadas del siglo. Holmes fue, y aún lo es, la figura mejor conocida que siempre se ha vinculado con el Tribunal Supremo y una de las cuatro o cinco personas más admiradas de la historia del sistema de gobierno norteamericano. Ha sido llamado el «apóstol de la libertad» y considerado un gran liberal. Como el Juez Frankfurter dijo, la piedra filosofal que el Juez Holmes ha empleado constantemente para el arbitraje es la convicción de que nuestro sistema constitucional descansa sobre la tolerancia y de que su gran enemigo es lo absoluto. Holmes fue un decidido partidario del realismo legal. El común denominador de las teorías del realismo legal será la concepción del Derecho como un medio para los fines sociales y no como un medio en sí mismo. Nadie como Holmes combatió tanto la tiranía de los tópìcos y las etiquetas. Su rechazo de la lógica y del método lógico es bien conocido. Para Holmes, ninguna proposición concreta sería «per se» evidente. Posiblemente, su dissent en el caso Lochner sea el más relevante en la Corte anterior a Roosevelt. En él, Holmes consideraría que la Constitución no debe entenderse que encarne una teoría económica particular, sea la del paternalismo y la relación orgánica del ciudadano con el Estado, sea la del laissez faire. Su dissent en el caso Lochner fue un elemento decisivo en la legitimación del instituto de las dissenting opinions.

Committing Ghana to International Agreements: A Review of the Roles of Parliament and the President

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-222
Author(s):  
Justice Srem-Sai
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Domestic Law

Ghana, a dualist state within the broader common law legal tradition, is confronted with the issue on the roles of parliament and the president in making and implementing treaties. This challenge is affecting the country's relationship with other states and international organisations. The purpose of this article is to assist in clarifying Ghana's constitutional law and practice position on the relationship between the country's treaty obligations and its domestic law. The article will also point out some challenges with the jurisprudence of Ghana's Supreme Court on the issue.

Progressive Judges in a Progressive Age: Regulatory Legislation in the Minnesota Supreme Court, 1880–1925

1993 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 383-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Chomsky
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Economic Inequality ◽  
Economic Regulation ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Substantive Due Process ◽  
Laissez Faire

The years between 1890 and 1937 traditionally have been viewed as a period of extreme judicial activism with respect to economic regulation, a time during which courts, both state and federal, interfered on a grand scale with legislative reform agendas. Fueled by the constitutional theories of Thomas Cooley and Christopher Tiedeman, the story goes, the courts became bastions of laissez-faire constitutionalism, relying on doctrines of substantive due process and liberty of contract to invalidate legislative efforts to redress social and economic inequality.

Toward a Progressive Realisation of Socio-economic Rights in Ghana: A Socio-legal Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-113
Author(s):  
Nana Tawiah Okyir
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Movements ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Policy ◽  
National Development ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court

This article argues for the strengthening and entrenchment of socio-economic rights provisions in Ghana's jurisprudence. The purpose of this entrenchment is to engender judicial activism in promoting more creative pathways for enforcing socio-economic rights in Ghana. The article traces the development of socio-economic rights in Ghana's jurisprudence, especially the influence of the requirements of the international rights movement, particularly of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The article delves into the constitutional history of Ghana and its impact on the evolution of rights in the country. Of particular historical emphasis is the emergence of socio-economic rights under the Directive Principles of State Policy in the 1979 Constitution. However, the significance of the socio-economic rights only became profound with the return to democratic rule under the 1992 Constitution, again under a distinct chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy. However, unlike its counterpart, the chapter on the Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, which is directly enforceable, the Directive Principles of State Policy were not. It took the Supreme Court of Ghana a series of landmark decisions until finally, in 2008, it arrived at a presumption of justiciability in respect of all of the provisions in the 1992 Constitution. It is evident that prior to this, the Supreme Court was not willing to apply the same standards of adjudication and enforcement as it ordinarily applies in respect of rights under the chapter on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms. Having surmounted the non-justiciability hurdle, what is left is for the courts to begin to vigorously pursue an agenda that puts socio-economic rights at the centre of Ghana's rights adjudication framework. The article draws on comparative experiences from India and South Africa to showcase the extent of judicial creativity in rights adjudication. In India, the courts have been able to work around provisions restricting the enforcement of Directive Principles by often connecting them to Fundamental Freedoms. In South Africa, there is no hierarchy between civil and political rights on the one hand and socio-economic rights on the other; for that reason, the courts give equal ventilation to both sets of rights. The article further analyses these examples in the light of ongoing constitutional reforms in Ghana. It argues that these reforms fall short of the activism required to propel socio-economic rights adjudication to the forefront in Ghana's jurisprudence. In this regard, the article proposes social movements as a viable tool for socio-economic rights advocacy by recounting its success in previous controversial issues in Ghana. The article also connects this to other important building blocks like building socio-economic rights into a national development blueprint. Overall, the article calls for an imaginative socio-economic rights enforcement approach that is predicated on legislation, judicial activism, social movements and a national development blueprint aimed at delivering a qualitative life for the Ghanaian.

America's Lone Star Constitution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
School Finance ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Relationship

Texas has created more constitutional law than any other state. In any classroom nationwide, any basic constitutional law course can be taught using nothing but Texas cases. That, however, understates the history and politics behind the cases. Beyond representing all doctrinal areas of constitutional law, Texas cases deal with the major issues of the nation. This book charts the rich and pervasive development of Texas-inspired constitutional law. From voting rights to railroad regulations, school finance to capital punishment, poverty to civil liberty, this book provides a window into the relationship between constitutional litigation and ordinary politics at the Texas Supreme Court, illuminating how all of the fiercest national divides over what the Constitution means took shape in Texas.

Common Law Constitutionalism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Profession ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Law System

This chapter shows how common law pleading, the use of common law vocabulary, and substantive common law rules lay at the foundation of every colony’s law by the middle of the eighteenth century. There is some explanation of how this common law system functioned in practice. The chapter then discusses why colonials looked upon the common law as a repository of liberty. It also discusses in detail the development of the legal profession individually in each of the thirteen colonies. Finally, the chapter ends with a discussion of the role of legislation. It shows that, although legislation had played an important role in the development of law and legal institutions in the seventeenth century, eighteenth-century Americans were suspicious of legislation, with the result that the output of pre-Revolutionary legislatures was minimal.

John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court

2001 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 519
Author(s):  
Peter S. Onuf ◽  
R. Kent Newmyer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
John Marshall
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document