Whither Campaign Finance Jurisprudence?

2021 ◽  
pp. 133-138
Author(s):  
Daron R. Shaw ◽  
Brian E. Roberts ◽  
Mijeong Baek
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The Political ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Political Policy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
And Behavior

Chapter 7 offers a discussion of the main results and a consideration of the political, policy, and jurisprudential implications of the study. It deliberates what happens in instances like this—when the Supreme Court fosters the construction of an entire edifice of laws and regulations that limit a fundamental right (free speech) based on an erroneous set of assumptions about political opinion and behavior. The role of social science in court decisions—particularly in the context of informing behavioral assumptions—is emphasized, along with a particular call for social scientists to investigate further the Buckley Court’s model.

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.

Distributive Autonomy, The Constitution, and Campaign Finance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Attanasio
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Electoral Behavior ◽  
The Political ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
False Information ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Wealthy Donors

In Kovacs v. Cooper, the Supreme Court permitted government to regulate the volume of sound trucks. One opinion stated that free speech does not include freedom “to drown out the natural speech of others.” Campaign speech of by interests drowns out all other campaign speech. This problem heavily distorts both the speaker’s right to speak and the listener’s right to know. The distortions disadvantage poorly financed candidates and mislead voters. What people think are the most important issues will be distorted; so will intensity of feelings on those issues. Such distortions will systematically skew electoral behavior based on false information. These distortions impair distributive autonomy of both listeners and speakers. In 2016, both presidential candidates overwhelmingly catered to wealthy donors. In this milieu, wealthy donors comprise the political “in” group; that is, the group who dominates government. Everyone else (the vast majority of voters) is a political “out.”

The Complexity of Sabbatino

1964 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 935-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Falk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Partial Analysis ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino is a seminal decision, interpreting significantly the role of a domestic court in an international law case. At the same time, it avoids reaching definitive results. Very little is settled once and for all by the Supreme Court. This realization prompts caution. Sabbatino will not yield an authoritative interpretation, except, perhaps, as a consequence of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. A commentator must be content, therefore, with the less dramatic claims of provisional and partial analysis. Those that claim more are misleading us. The complexity of Sabbatino is almost certain to poison hordes of over-clarifiers who are descending upon this major judicial decision as vultures upon a freshly dead carcass.

scholarly journals The Return of Federalism and Constitutional Politics: Analyzing the Role of the Supreme Court as an Arbiter in Contemporary Political Society

Federalism-E ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Marjun Parcasio
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Society ◽  
Constitutional Politics ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Past ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Death Experience

Since the ascendancy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the centrepiece of a new constitutional order in Canada, there has been a distinctive decline of federal discourse in the courts and within the political sphere. Traditional cases pertaining to the division of powers at the Supreme Court have been eclipsed by the novelty of rights jurisprudence that has consumed the court in the past three decades1. Moreover, constitutional issues have been considered an anathema since the failure of the negotiations at Meech Lake and Charlottetown, exacerbated by the near-death experience for federalism in the 1995 referendum in Québec. In recent years, however, the changing nature of Canada’s political dynamics has signalled a return of federalism and constitutional politics [...]

scholarly journals THE ROLE OF GUARDIAN FOR AN AGGRIEVED MINOR IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Probacja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 13-30
Author(s):  
Izabela Urbaniak-Mastalerz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
A Minor

The study presents the problem of the role of guardian for an aggrieved minor in criminal proceedings. The legal regulations and court decisions are indicated regarding the role of guardian for a minor. The author attempts to solve the problem of how the role of guardian for minors should be perceived, given the existing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and common courts. The conclusions from the evaluation of the regulations and judgments, based on the available statistics, form the starting point for the assessment of the guardian’s capacities in legal proceedings.

scholarly journals The Framers' Muse on Republicanism, the Supreme Court,and Pragmatic Constitutional Interpretivism

1991 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Novel Theory ◽  
Republican Government ◽  
Republican Liberty ◽  
Republican Theory

The so-called Madisonian dilemma has dominated recent debates over the role of the Supreme Court and suggested a “majoritarian paradigm” for constitutional interpretation. But a reexamination of James Madison's unique contributions to republican theory indicates that the “Madisonian dilemma” is in many ways misleading and unfaithful to his political vision. Madison, argues the author in Section I, worked a conceptual change in republican theory. Madison did so because he was convinced that republican liberty (and government) was primarily threatened by popular majorities and legislative majoritarianism in Congress and the states. For that reason, Madison advanced his well-known “naturalist” argument for republicanism and, on that basis, argued for buttressing the political architecture of republican government with “auxiliary precautions” for securing republican liberty. From Madison's reconstruction of republicanism, Section II moves to his conversion to the project of amending the Constitution with a declaration of rights and the basis he laid for the Supreme Court's role in defending republican government and liberty. Finally, Section III takes up Madison's view of the role of the Supreme Court and his articulation of a novel theory of pragmatic constitutional interpretivism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document