scholarly journals Equality Kapped; Media Unleashed

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Diana Majury
Keyword(s):  
Public Education ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
General Public ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Substantive Equality ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Media ◽  
Formal Equality ◽  
Grand Public

In this paper, Diana Majury looks at the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent s.15 decision, R. v. Kapp, in a preliminary exploration of the different understandings of equality she sees operating in three different sites (the Supreme Court, equality advocates, and the general public). She looks at the first two sites simultaneously by offering her equality advocate’s critique of the Kapp decision, outlining where the decision falls short of the substantive equality that equality advocates have been theorizing and promoting. She then looks at media responses to the decision, responses that almost unanimously present a formal equality understanding of equality. Recognizing that media coverage provides only a very limited and partial window on public perceptions, the media coverage of Kapp nonetheless raises the spectre that the general public understands equality only to mean formal equality. This conclusion highlights the importance of Rose Vyovodic’s work in combining equality and public education and the need for that work to be continued and expanded.Dans cet article, Diana Majury examine le récent jugement R. c. Kapp de la Cour Suprême du Canada en rapport avec l’article 15 pour faire une exploration préliminaire des compréhensions diverses de l’égalité qu’elle constate être en jeu dans trois lieux différents (la Cour Suprême, chez les défenseurs de l’égalité et chez le grand public). Elle examine les deux premiers lieux simultanément en présentant sa critique du jugement Kapp en tant que défenseure de l’égalité, exposant en quoi le jugement n’atteint pas l’égalité de fond au sujet de laquelle théorisent et que préconisent les défenseurs de l’égalité. Puis elle examine les réactions médiatiques au jugement, réactions qui présentent presque unanimement une compréhension d’égalité comme égalité formelle. Tout en reconnaissant que la couverture médiatique ne présente qu’une fenêtre très limitée et partielle sur les perceptions du public, la couverture médiatique de Kapp laisse tout de même pressentir que le grand public ne conçoit l’égalité que dans le sens d’égalité formelle. Cette conclusion fait ressortir l’importance de l’oeuvre de Rose Vyovodic qui combinait égalité et éducation du public et le besoin que cette oeuvre se poursuive et grandisse.

scholarly journals Connecting Supreme Court Decisions, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion: The Case of Lawrence v. Texas

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 209-230
Author(s):  
Mahalley D. Allen ◽  
Donald P. Haider-Markel
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Gay And Lesbian ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Media ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
The Relationship

Many scholars have examined the relationship between public opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court, but most researchers have often failed to take into account the fact that the press mediates this relationship. Due to the public’s lack of independent knowledge about Supreme Court decisions, the media has the potential to play an influential role in the communication and interpretation of Supreme Court decisions. In this article, we examine the relationship between the Supreme Court, the media, and public opinion. First, we examine whether increased public tolerance on gay and lesbian issues has resulted in increased media coverage of gay-related cases before the Supreme Court. Second, we examine how media coverage of the Court’s 2003 decision to strike down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas may have been associated with decreased public support for gay and lesbian civil rights. Our analysis suggests that increased support for gay and lesbian civil rights may have lead to increased media attention to the Lawrence case and that the tone of this coverage may have subsequently resulted in an observed decrease in support for gay and lesbian civil rights following the Court’s decision. We also suggest that the release of a highly critical dissenting opinion by the Court in the case may have encouraged negative media coverage and the resulting shift in public opinion. Our research has broad implications for media coverage of Supreme Court decisions.

scholarly journals ‘Equally unequal or unequally equal’

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-85
Author(s):  
Ebenezer Durojaye ◽  
Yinka Owoeye
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Gender Inequality ◽  
Women's Rights ◽  
Women’S Rights ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Substantive Equality ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Formal Equality ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The purpose of this article is to critically assess the approach of Nigerian courts to interpreting section 42 of the Constitution. This article argues that Nigerian courts are yet to develop a substantive equality approach to interpreting section 42 of the Constitution. Rather, the courts have tended to adopt the formal equality approach to interpreting the section. Analysing some decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the article argues that in order to safeguard women’s rights and address gender inequality in the country, Nigerian courts should lean towards substantive equality approach to the interpretation of section 42 of the Constitution. This is not only consistent with Nigeria’s obligations under international law but also crucial to addressing historical imbalances between men and women in the country.

scholarly journals Coming into focus: an examination of how political actors and media outlets in Canada framed the Chaoulli v. Quebec case.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Snyder
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
News Frames ◽  
Human Interest ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Media ◽  
Issue Frames ◽  
Court Hearing

"This paper presents the findings of a study that examined how different political actors and the media presented the Chaoulli v. Quebec case to public. As should be clear, the Chaoulli v. Quebec case was both an extremely important case and an extremely complicated one. As a result, it is important to understand how it was presented to the public. The study was conducted in two parts. First, the specific issues frames expressed by political actors at the Supreme Court hearing were identified and mapped. This was done by examining the transcripts and factums from the hearing and noting the different problem definitions, causal interpretations, suggested remedies, and moral appeals expressed by political actors there (Entman 1993). This review revealed that three distinct specific issues frames were put forth during the hearing by three distinct sets of actors. Next, media coverage of the case was examined. Specifically, media coverage in the Toronto Star, the National Post, the Globe and Mail, and the Ottawa Citizen was examined from the day the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case until six-months after the Supreme Court announced its ruling. Using content analysis, this part of the study identified (1) the presence or absence of the specific issue frames identified in the first part of the study; (2) the type of generic news frames (e.g. the Human Interest Frame) (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000) used to present the case, and (3) which political actors were directly quoted in coverage of the case."--Page 4.

scholarly journals Coming into focus: an examination of how political actors and media outlets in Canada framed the Chaoulli v. Quebec case.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Snyder
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
News Frames ◽  
Human Interest ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Media ◽  
Issue Frames ◽  
Court Hearing

"This paper presents the findings of a study that examined how different political actors and the media presented the Chaoulli v. Quebec case to public. As should be clear, the Chaoulli v. Quebec case was both an extremely important case and an extremely complicated one. As a result, it is important to understand how it was presented to the public. The study was conducted in two parts. First, the specific issues frames expressed by political actors at the Supreme Court hearing were identified and mapped. This was done by examining the transcripts and factums from the hearing and noting the different problem definitions, causal interpretations, suggested remedies, and moral appeals expressed by political actors there (Entman 1993). This review revealed that three distinct specific issues frames were put forth during the hearing by three distinct sets of actors. Next, media coverage of the case was examined. Specifically, media coverage in the Toronto Star, the National Post, the Globe and Mail, and the Ottawa Citizen was examined from the day the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case until six-months after the Supreme Court announced its ruling. Using content analysis, this part of the study identified (1) the presence or absence of the specific issue frames identified in the first part of the study; (2) the type of generic news frames (e.g. the Human Interest Frame) (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000) used to present the case, and (3) which political actors were directly quoted in coverage of the case."--Page 4.

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 Defense of the Supreme Court Decision in Alvarez-Machain

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 736-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malvina Halberstam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Drug Enforcement ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Suspects ◽  
The Media

In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court sustained the jurisdiction of a U.S. court to try a Mexican national, charged with various counts of conspiracy, kidnaping and the murder of a U.S. drug enforcement agent in Mexico, even though his presence in the United States was the result of abduction rather than extradition pursuant to the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico. The Court did not hold, as widely reported in the media, that the Treaty permits abduction, that abduction is legal, or that the United States had a right to kidnap criminal suspects abroad. On the contrary, the Court acknowledged that the abduction may have been a violation of international law. It stated, “Respondent and his amici may be correct that respondent’s abduction was ’shocking’ and that it may be in violation of general international law principles.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document