Epilogue

2020 ◽  
pp. 183-214
Author(s):  
Leslie Dorrough Smith
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Assault ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
White Male ◽  
Double Standard ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Considerable Advantage ◽  
Sex Scandals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Male Heterosexual

This chapter examines how the Supreme Court confirmation process of Justice Brett Kavanaugh closely followed a white male heterosexual double standard that is often at the center of political sex scandals, one inspired by the evangelical norms that this book has discussed. Kavanaugh was the 2018 Supreme Court nominee (and current Justice) accused by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of a sexual assault. The chapter analyzes the Ford/Kavanaugh testimonies in relationship to the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas case. This comparison highlights the racial and gendered mechanics by which all four characters were judged. While Ford was regarded by many as a credible witness from the standpoint of her demeanor and testimony, the author argues that Kavanaugh was able to draw on a variety of raced and gendered symbols that solidified the support of his political peers, including Donald Trump. In short, Kavanaugh’s demeanor as a white, angry, sexualized adolescent granted him a considerable advantage.

scholarly journals Fascism-lite in America (or The Social Ideal of Donald Trump)

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewan McGaughey
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Citizens United ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Supreme Court

Abstract What explains the election of the 45th President of the United States? Many commentators have said that Trump is a fascist. This builds on grave concerns, since Citizens United, that democracy is being corrupted. This article suggests the long term cause, and the shape of ideology is more complex. In 1971, an extraordinary memorandum of Lewis Powell for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged that ‘[b]usiness interests’ should ‘press vigorously in all political arenas for support’. Richard Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court, and a few years later, despite powerful dissent, a majority in Buckley v. Valeo held that candidates may spend unlimited funds on their own political campaigns, a decision of which Donald Trump, and others, have taken full advantage. Citizens United compounded the problems, but Buckley v. Valeo was the ‘Trump for President’ case. This provided a platform from which Trump could propel himself into extensive media coverage. The 2016 election was inseparable from the social ideal pursued by a majority of the Supreme Court since 1976. No modern judiciary had engaged in a more sustained assault on democracy and human rights. Properly understood, ‘fascism’ is a contrasting, hybrid political ideology. It mixes liberalism’s dislike of state intervention, social conservatism’s embrace of welfare provision for insiders (not ‘outsiders’), and collectivism’s view that associations are key actors in a class conflict. Although out of control, Trump is closely linked to neo-conservative politics. It is too hostile to insider welfare to be called ‘fascist’. Its political ideology is weaker. If we had to give it a name, the social ideal of Donald Trump is ‘fascism-lite’.

In Scalia’s Shadow

Never Trump ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 197-220
Author(s):  
Robert P. Saldin ◽  
Steven M. Teles
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
First Choice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Total Lack ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Trump Administration

This chapter explores the creation of Checks and Balances, a new group of conservative legal critics of the Trump administration. From his racist attack on the federal district judge ruling on the Trump University case and suspicions that he would appoint his own sister to the Supreme Court, to his threats to revise libel law so as to silence his rivals and his nearly total lack of constitutional discussion, Donald Trump was almost no prominent conservative lawyer's first choice. Once he dispatched all his Republican rivals, however, conservative lawyers were in a quandary. The death of Antonin Scalia, the most celebrated conservative jurist of his generation and a leader of the conservative legal movement, put the future of the Supreme Court squarely on the ballot. Once the character of Trump's governance became clear, Checks and Balances emerged to criticize the administration's legal conduct.

Colonization through Disclosure: Confidential Records, Sexual Assault Complainants and Canadian Law

2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise Gotell
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Assault ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Canadian Experience ◽  
Sexual Violation ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Relative Status

This article explores the Canadian experience of widened access to sexual assault complainants' private records. It dissects legal developments from the mid-1990s, when the Canadian Supreme Court established a liberalized disclosure regime in the landmark O'Connor decision. A legislative reform passed in 1997 that sought to establish a stricter regime was recently upheld and at the same time weakened by the Supreme Court in Mills. The article contends that access to complainants' records stands as a critical example of how a liberal legalistic discourse of sexual assault is extending its hegemony by colonizing and silencing, in particular, feminist and therapeutic discourses. At issue is the relative status of legal 'Truth' and dissonant and emergent feminist narratives, as well as our ability to understand and speak about sexual violation outside of the narrow confines of law.

US emergency powers will see deeper debate

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Puerto Rico ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Natural Disaster ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Emergency Powers ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Mexico Border ◽  
Democrats And Republicans ◽  
Us Mexico Border

Significance Democrats and Republicans have not yet agreed a way out of the impasse over building a US-Mexico border wall that caused the shutdown. President Donald Trump has suggested using presidential emergency powers to build the wall. Impacts If wall-building money came from funds for natural-disaster-hit California or Puerto Rico, Republican support could suffer. Moves to ensure furloughed federal workers get back-pay on government’s re-opening will give Republicans some political cover. Democratic legislative moves to limit presidential emergency powers could gain some Republican votes. Trump would veto any bill curtailing his powers, but he is unlikely to make widespread use of emergency powers. A fight over emergency powers would likely go to the Supreme Court; it might rule for Trump.

US November election could produce crisis

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Smooth Transition ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Election Result ◽  
The Supreme Court

Significance Protests and partisan divisions are rife. The COVID-19 pandemic is forcing changes to how the elections will work, with some states promoting postal voting that President Donald Trump claims is a recipe for fraud. The final result could differ decisively from that reported on election night. A smooth transition rests on one candidate conceding defeat. Impacts President Donald Trump could again win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote. Delays to counting mail-in ballots may mean one candidate appears to have a wide lead that subsequently vanishes. The Supreme Court may have to arbitrate the election result. The election result could trigger widescale protests, whether Trump or Biden wins.

Democrats will avoid block on US Supreme Court pick

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Personal Influence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Regulatory Powers

Significance President Donald Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last year. Congressional Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy, Judge Merrick Garland, enabling Trump to name a conservative justice to set the balance of the Court after winning the presidential election. At least one Democratic senator has threatened to block Gorsuch’s appointment via upper house procedure. Impacts Future Democratic presidential candidates from the current Senate may suffer in primaries if they allow Gorsuch’s appointment. Gorsuch will help the White House and Congress severely cut back federal regulatory powers. Congressional Republicans are more likely to defy Trump on personnel and policy as his personal influence wanes ahead of the 2020 elections.

Media

2020 ◽  
pp. 149-182
Author(s):  
Leslie Dorrough Smith
Keyword(s):  
Jewish Identity ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
White Male ◽  
Double Standard ◽  
Media Frames ◽  
Sex Scandals ◽  
The Media ◽  
Reagan Era

Chapter 5 shows how the media’s portrayal of sex scandals may appear to hold wayward politicians responsible, but ends up reinforcing a white heterosexual double standard influenced by evangelical thinking. This occurs when white male politicians are portrayed as shameful but relatively benign while the women around them (including their wives) are often equally shamed. The chapter examines the conditions behind today’s sex scandal reporting, including the 1980s televangelist sex scandals and other Reagan-era events that heightened public interest in journalism on sex. It examines multiples media frames used to portray white politicians as silly, their lovers as immoral, and their wives as unattractive and power-hungry or silent and weak. A case study compares the media coverage of Anthony Weiner with that of Arnold Schwarzenegger to show that stereotypes about Weiner’s Jewish identity and his virtual sexting habit rendered him a much weaker figure than Schwarzenegger, whose sex scandals were almost non-events.

Niqabs in Canadian Courts:R v NS

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 334-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
M H Ogilvie
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Assault ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Muslim Woman ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Practical Utility ◽  
Trial Judges ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Sexual Assault Case ◽  
Actual Decision

InR v NSthe Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) was asked to consider a straightforward question: must a Muslim woman remove a niqab (face covering leaving only the eyes showing) when giving evidence in a sexual assault case in which she is the complainant. Two justices said ‘yes’; one said ‘almost always, no’; and the majority said ‘maybe yes, maybe no – it depends’. The matter was then returned to the preliminary inquiry judge to make the actual decision, which could still be subject again to appeal to the SCC. The court divided on the three available answers to the question: yes, no and maybe. The division, however, leaned in favour of requiring removal of the niqab because the reasons for judgment favouring ‘maybe’ were concurred in in the result by those favouring removal. In the end, the court did not give a clear answer to the question, but rather provided a four-part test for trial judges who must continue to make the decision, subject to appeal. The practical utility of this response may be doubted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document