9. The Supreme Court of Mexico: Reconfiguring Federalism through Constitutional Adjudication and Amendment after Single-Party Rule

2017 ◽  
pp. 256-289 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Local State ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Entire Nation ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The Impact

This book examines the impact of Supreme Court cases from Texas on the entire nation. It argues that the most important Supreme Court cases have originated in Texas, which help explain why it is Texas and not California that provides breadth and depth to constitutional adjudication. Texas litigants, lawyers, politicians, and judges all play important roles in the underlying interplay of law and politics at the local, state, and national levels. In all its facets, Texas offers a window to all constitutional law and the Supreme Court. The book shows that Texas's impact literally started at the beginning by precipitating a debate over national powers and then a war with Mexico, and that the fraught relationship between Texas, the nation, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court in the century and a half since Texas v. White has produced more constitutional law than any other state.

scholarly journals The Impact of the Supreme Court of Canada on Intergovernmental Relations

Federalism-E ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Goldlist
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Political Resources ◽  
Canadian Federalism ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The Impact

The role of the Supreme Court in the practice of Canadian federalism, specifically the extent of its power and the effects of that power, is a hotly contested issue in Canadian political science. While some scholars have argued that the Court has taken on too political of a role that must be restricted, this paper develops the Court as a constitutional ‘umpire,’ whose rulings serve the important, but limited, functions of allocating political resources to incentivize negotiation, and establishing jurisdictional boundaries for said negotiations, leaving specific policy decisions to political, as opposed to legal, actors. Concerning the net outcome of the Court’s jurisprudence on the distribution of legislative powers, this paper illustrates the Court’s overall balancing approach, with grants of power to one level of government met with increases in authority to the other, in all major policy areas. Thus, ultimately shown to embrace both a limited and impartial approach to constitutional adjudication, the Court has done much to enhance its democratic legitimacy and constitutional utility.

scholarly journals THE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT IN MILLER: IN SEARCH OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Formal Process ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn R. (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Supreme Court of the UK (1) held that the UK Government had no prerogative power to initiate the formal process whereby the UK will withdraw from the EU and (2) declined to recognise any requirement that the devolved legislatures’ consent be obtained in respect of legislation authorising the Government to commence the withdrawal process. This article critically examines Miller, arguing that the majority's analysis veers between unwarranted muscularity in relation to the prerogative issue and unnecessary conservatism as regards the devolution issue. The article goes on to argue that while the majority judgment's restrictive approach to the prerogative may be viewed as a progressive victory for constitutional principle, such an evaluation can be sustained only if a set of relatively traditional constitutional premises are adopted to begin with. The article also contends that the general approach adopted by the majority is problematic, given its willingness to invoke arguments of constitutional principle without adequately engaging with questions about what the pertinent principles are, and argues that such an intellectually lackadaisical mode of constitutional adjudication is to be deprecated.

scholarly journals Determining the Bench Size for Constitutional Adjudication

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
B Muthu Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Tamil Nadu ◽  
Assistant Professor ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The Impact

The Supreme Court of India acts as a Constitutional Court as well as the highest appellate court. The Constitution imposes mandatory minimum requirements for the strength of the Bench for constitutional adjudication. The apex Court has been criticized for constituting fewer number of Constitution benches, and for delaying the disposal of constitutional matters. Many Constitutional questions are being decided upon by Division benches or Constitutional benches, consisting of merely three members, due to prolific appeals in the Supreme Court. The researcher aims to analyze the question ‘whether the size of the Bench matters for constitutional adjudication?’ The article in the light of Constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court Rules, focuses on the impact of small and large benches, particularly in the highest Court of the land, where constitutional questions are decided upon. The Kesavananda Bharati case has been employed to examine the pros and cons of a large Bench, and the recent NJAC case is analyzed to bring out the problems of a smaller Bench, in overruling the decision of a larger Bench. The researcher therefore, attempts to answer the * Assistant Professor, SRM School of Law, SRM University, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India; [email protected] question whether a minimum required strength of the Bench in constitutional adjudication is required for the organic development of constitutional jurisprudence in our country.

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-203
Author(s):  
Kendra Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Pressure Sores ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
LuAnn Haley ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Complex Concept ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Television News and the Supreme Court

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot E. Slotnick ◽  
Jennifer A. Segal
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Television News ◽  
The Supreme Court
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document