The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods

The article is devoted to determine the authority competent to carry out the execution of the obligation to vaccinate, as well as the authority competent to apply for punishment of those who persistently evade preventive vaccinations on the basis of the Code of Misdemeanours in Poland. After analysing the competencies of the public administration bodies and comparing them with the judicial decisions of the administrative courts and the Supreme Court issued in cases involving mandatory preventive vaccination, which present an inconsistent line of jurisprudence, the author concludes that the enforcement body is the province governor. However, it is necessary to postulate legislative changes, primarily in the area of the possible transfer of competencies from the province governor to the State Sanitary Inspection.

Download Full-text

Cost Containment in the Health Care Field and the Antitrust Laws

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800005451 ◽

1982 ◽

Vol 7 (4) ◽

pp. 425-435

Author(s):

David I. Shapiro

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Medical Society ◽

The Public ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Antitrust Laws ◽

Care Field ◽

Antitrust Analysis ◽

Care Costs

AbstractThe Supreme Court of the United States and other courts currently are considering the question of the extent to which the health care field should be subject to antitrust rules. This Article explores the special characteristics of the health care field, and the problems they create for antitrust analysis. Two current cases—Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society (awaiting decision by the Supreme Court) and Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. (pending in the District of Massachusetts)—illustrate the issues raised by efforts to contain health care costs through the setting of maximum fees. This Article suggests that traditional antitrust principles should and will prevail over arguments that such restraints are in the public interest.

Download Full-text

A History of Public Mapping

The Public Mapping Project ◽

10.7591/cornell/9781501738548.003.0002 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 16-28

Author(s):

Michael P. McDonald ◽

Micah Altman

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Open Source ◽

General Public ◽

High Speed ◽

Public Access ◽

The Public ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

History Of ◽

Equal Population ◽

The Web

This chapter discusses the history of public mapping. The earliest reform efforts in redistricting were made possible because districts were primarily drawn out of large geographic units such as counties, which greatly simplified the redistricting task. That task grew more complex in the early 1960s, when the Supreme Court ruled that districts had to be of roughly equal population: counties would now often have to be split between two or more districts. The increasing computational demands effectively shut the public out of redistricting, since redistricting could be performed only on extremely costly computer systems. The reemergence of public mapping began in the 1990s, when states began offering public access to computer terminals loaded with their redistricting software and data. Eventually, two technological innovations by 2010 made public mapping available to the general public. Organizations and individuals are now able to leverage high-speed internet and open-source software to disseminate easy-to-use redistricting systems through the Web.

Download Full-text

The Supreme Court and Elites

The Company They Keep ◽

10.1093/oso/9780197539156.003.0002 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 15-58

Author(s):

Neal Devins ◽

Lawrence Baum

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Social Issues ◽

Ronald Reagan ◽

Same Sex ◽

Policy Positions ◽

The Public ◽

Highly Educated ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Good Policy

This chapter develops the argument that is summarized in chapter 1. One lesson of social psychology is that Supreme Court justices are not single-mindedly devoted to making good law or good policy. Rather, they have multiple goals that include a concern for their reputations, especially how they are regarded by the elite groups of which they are part. As a result, while the general public may have an impact on the justices, they respond primarily to fellow elites. Indeed, the Court’s decisions on most controversial social issues such as affirmative action and same-sex marriage are more consistent with the policy positions of highly educated people than the positions of the public as a whole. Starting with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, elites have become less homogeneous; over the past 25 years, today’s elites increasingly reflect the growing partisan divide among liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Nonetheless, norms within the elite legal profession such as collegiality and legally oriented decision making shape the behavior of justices, sometimes counteracting the effects of ideology.

Download Full-text

The Implications of the Supreme Court Decisions Dealing with Religious Practices in the Public Schools

Journal of Church and State ◽

10.1093/jcs/6.1.44 ◽

1964 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 44-60

Author(s):

J. B. Fordham

Keyword(s):

Public Schools ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Religious Practices ◽

Court Decisions ◽

The Public ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Supreme Court Decisions

Download Full-text

Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court

American Political Science Review ◽

10.1017/s0003055400185077 ◽

1986 ◽

Vol 80 (4) ◽

pp. 1209-1226 ◽

Cited By ~ 86

Author(s):

Gregory A. Caldeira

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Cross Sections ◽

Public Support ◽

Public Confidence ◽

The Public ◽

Political Events ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Presidential Popularity ◽

And Shifts ◽

High Bench

Systematic study of changes in support for the U.S. Supreme Court across time has not been undertaken. Armed with a time series of observations from 1966 through 1984, I provide a description of the ebb and flow of public esteem for the Court. Then I outline and test several plausible propositions about the dynamics of support. Statistical analyses compel the conclusion that apart from a relatively constant core of support, increases in judicial activism, inflation, and solicitude for the rights of the accused decreased confidence in the Court; the events surrounding Watergate and increases in presidential popularity and the public salience of the Court brought about increased popular esteem for the high bench. Previous scholars, based on cross-sections of individuals, have emphasized the public's ignorance of and disinterest in the Supreme Court and judicial policy making. The responsiveness of public support for the Court in the aggregate to political events and shifts in the behavior of the justices stands in stark contrast to the conventional image of United States citizenry as singularly out of touch with and unmoved by the Supreme Court.

Download Full-text

We Can Thank Harvey Weinstein for Doing What Congress and the Supreme Court Failed to Do

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly ◽

10.1177/1938965518761993 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 59 (2) ◽

pp. 174-188 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

David Sherwyn ◽

Paul Wagner

Keyword(s):

Social Movements ◽

Sexual Harassment ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Popular Press ◽

Legal Concept ◽

The Public ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Law

While the years 2017 and 2018 will be remembered for numerous geo political and social movements, any retrospective of this time will include the issue of sexual harassment and the corresponding “Me Too” movement. In this time, sexual harassment has transformed from a workplace legal concept to an issue that is defining the fabric of the country. While no one could persuasively argue that sexual harassment has not expanded from its legal roots to a movement that transcends the law, the fact is that the concept is rooted and adjudicated in law. Sadly, the commentators and the popular press often ignore or misstate the law. This creates a dangerous culture where the public is misinformed of their rights and responsibilities. More troubling, is the fact that there are serious problems with the law that need to be understand and, we contend, changed, in order for the entire problem to be eliminated, or, at least, mitigated. This paper explains the law with regard to what constitutes sexual harassment and when the employer is liable, identifies the problems, and proposes a fix so that we can create a future workplace where the authors’ five daughters (between them) and the rest of their generation will be able to honestly not raise their hands and not have to say: “Me Too!”

Download Full-text

Advance Health Care Directives and “Public Guardian”: The Italian Supreme Court Requests the Status of Current and Not Future Inability

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2014/576391 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 ◽

pp. 1-4 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Francesco Paolo Busardò ◽

Stefania Bello ◽

Matteo Gulino ◽

Simona Zaami ◽

Paola Frati

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Advance Directives ◽

Critical Issue ◽

Health Care Decisions ◽

The Public ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Status ◽

The Usa ◽

The Guardian

Advance health care decisions animate an intense debate in several European countries, which started more than 20 years ago in the USA and led to the adoption of different rules, based on the diverse legal, sociocultural and philosophical traditions of each society. In Italy, the controversial issue of advance directives and end of life’s rights, in the absence of a clear and comprehensive legislation, has been over time a subject of interest of the Supreme Court. Since 2004 a law introduced the “Public Guardian,” aiming to provide an instrument of assistance to the person lacking in autonomy because of an illness or incapacity. Recently, this critical issue has once again been brought to the interest of the Supreme Court, which passed a judgment trying to clarify the legislative application of the appointment of the Guardian in the field of advance directives.

Download Full-text

Constitutional Law in 1959–1960

American Political Science Review ◽

10.1017/s0003055400124220 ◽

1961 ◽

Vol 55 (1) ◽

pp. 112-135

Author(s):

David Fellman

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Gulf Of Mexico ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Point Of View ◽

Important Place ◽

The Public ◽

The Pacific ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Pacific Ocean

The personnel of the Supreme Court remained unchanged during the 1959 Term. From the point of view of the decisions rendered in the public law field, this was an undistinguished Term. Few of the constitutional cases are likely to hold an important place among the precedents, and a considerable number of well-argued decisions turned entirely upon private law questions. But there was no dearth of writing, during the period under review, about the Court as an institution and about the Justices who sit there.Note may be made at this point of the latest chapter in the long dispute over the so-called tidelands. In 1947 the Supreme Court had ruled that, as against the claims of California, the United States possessed paramount rights in lands underlying the Pacific Ocean seaward from the low-water mark. Similar rulings were made in 1950 as regards the claims of Louisiana and Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. But with the enactment in 1953 of the Submerged Lands Act, the United States relinquished to the coastal states all of its rights in all lands beneath navigable waters within the three-mile limit, and in excess of that limit within state boundaries as they existed at the time a state became a member of the Union, or as theretofore approved by Congress. The limit of the grant was three leagues (about ten and one-half miles) in the Gulf of Mexico and three geographical miles in the Atlantic and Pacific. The actual extent of the claims of the coastal states involved in the question was therefore left to be settled by litigation.

Download Full-text

Disparitas Penuntutan Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Penganiayaan dalam Sistem Pemidanaan di Indonesia

ARBITER: Jurnal Ilmiah Magister Hukum ◽

10.31289/arbiter.v1i1.107 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 66-78

Author(s):

Benny Leonard Saragih ◽

Ediwarman Ediwarman ◽

Muaz Zul

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Criminal Code ◽

Public Prosecutor ◽

Internal Factors ◽

Legal Norms ◽

The Public ◽

Criminal Offenses ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Republic ◽

Substantive Law

Difference in punishment or sentencing disparity is basically a natural thing because it can be said almost no case that is really the same. Disparity becomes a problem when the range of the sentence imposed differences between similar cases so large, giving rise to injustice and can give rise to suspicions in the community. Disparities in the Criminal (disparity of sentencing) is not the same as the application of criminal offenses against the same (same offense) or the criminal acts that are dangerous to be compared (offenses of comparable seriousness) without clear justification. Based on Law No. 16 of 2004 which replaced Law No. 5 of 1991 About the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia is an institution in the field of prosecution of the main authority of the public prosecutor act prosecution about what is meant by the prosecution as well as the reference to the provisions of Article 1 point 7 and Article 137 Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Law of Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal Code). Research Methods in writing this thesis carried out by the method of normative law, namely analyzing and searching for answers to the problems raised by the substantive law / legal norms contained in the rules of law, the Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA), the Supreme Court Circular, and etc. Factors that cause the disparity criminal offense namely Legislation Provisions factors, internal factors and external factors.

Download Full-text