The Future of LGBT Politics

2022 ◽  
pp. 34-42
Author(s):  
Karla L. Drenner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Shared Set ◽  
The Future ◽  
Political Selection ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

This chapter summarizes the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in national policymaking. In the United States there exists a nationally shared set of beliefs, values, and customs, or cultural universals. However, these shared attributes vary according to place and political affiliation. Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples through judicial means precipitated a backlash in which religious groups and individuals turned to legislative solutions to contest the court's decision and their obligation to recognize marriage equality. As the final arbiter of law in the United States, the nine unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court play a significant role in policymaking, and their attitudes and decisions regarding policy are tied to the political selection of justices. In the future, decision making from the court to further extend the rights of LGBT citizens may be directly tied to the increasingly partisan selection process for justices.

The Future of LGBT Politics

2019 ◽  
pp. 144-156
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Shared Set ◽  
The Future ◽  
Political Selection ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

This chapter summarizes the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in national policymaking. In the United States there exists a nationally shared set of beliefs, values, and customs, or cultural universals. However, these shared attributes vary according to place and political affiliation. Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples through judicial means precipitated a backlash in which religious groups and individuals turned to legislative solutions to contest the court's decision and their obligation to recognize marriage equality. As the final arbiter of law in the United States, the nine unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court play a significant role in policymaking, and their attitudes and decisions regarding policy are tied to the political selection of justices. In the future, decision making from the court to further extend the rights of LGBT citizens may be directly tied to the increasingly partisan selection process for justices.

Conclusion

2022 ◽  
pp. 296-317
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Selection ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

This chapter summarizes the role of the U.S. Supreme Court as a national policy-making institution. As the final arbiter of law in the United States, the nine unelected justices of the Supreme Court contend their attitudes and decisions are tied to the political selection of justices. Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples through judicial means ignited a backlash in which religious groups and individuals turned to legislative solutions to contest the court's decision and its obligation to recognize marriage equality. Today, the same types of claims that once justified anti-LGBTQ laws are being used to advocate for religious and moral exemptions from laws designed to protect the dignity of LGBTQ people. With this turn back to religion, the cycle of subordination has come full circle. Future decision making from the court to extend the rights of LGBTQ citizens is directly tied to the changing composition of its members.

scholarly journals Living or Dead? Specifics of the Language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-136
Author(s):  
Izabela Kraśnicka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Original Text ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Language Interpretation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
American Legal System ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

Abstract The original text of the Constitution of the United States of America, written over 200 years ago, constitutes the supreme source of law in the American legal system. The seven articles and twenty seven amendments dictate understanding of fundamental principles of the federation’s functioning and its citizens’ rights. The paper aims to present the evolution of the U.S. Constitution’s language interpretation as provided by its final interpreter - the Supreme Court of the United States. Example of the Second Amendment will be analyzed to present the change in understanding of the language grammar and, as a consequence, the sense of the right to keep and bear arms in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of District of Columbia v Heller (554 U.S. 570 (2008)). It will argue for the accuracy of statement of Charles Evans Hughes, former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”

scholarly journals U.S. Senatorial Race for Maine

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-89
Author(s):  
Giustina Luisa Bombini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Current Speaker ◽  
The Right ◽  
Precarious Situation ◽  
The U.S

Over the course of 23 years, United States Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has been able to successfully walk a unique line of nonpartisanship, never stepping too far to the right, or to the left. However, following her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court in 2017, and her vote to acquit President Trump of his impeachment charges in early 2020, Susan Collins placed herself in an incredibly precarious situation. Pundits and analysts were convinced that this election would turn into a referendum on Susan Collins (Lyall 2020). Meanwhile, her opponent, the current Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, Sara Gideon, consistently led in the polls and worked off of the momentum gained from the success of the U.S. House Democrats in the 2018 midterms. And yet, Susan Collins stunned the nation by defeating Gideon. This paper evaluates and analyses what possible causes led to this outcome. Ultimately, Collins’ choice to vote against the confirmation of late-Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement on the Supreme Court convinced Mainers that Susan Collins could still be trusted, and should be given another chance.

scholarly journals THE CONCEPT AND THE CONTENT OF THE INTERROGATION OF THE SUSPECT IN CUSTODY IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (40) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The paper analyses some relevant issues related to the treatment oflaw enforcement officers in the United States after a person has been taken intocustody or otherwise deprived of liberty, which requires informing that personof his/her constitutional rights. In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona(1966), the Supreme Court of the United States set standards for law enforcementofficers to follow when interrogating suspects held in custody.Suspects who are subject to custodial interrogation must be warned of theirright to remain silent; that any statements they make may be used as evidenceagainst them; that they have a right to an attorney; and if they cannot afford anattorney, the State will assign them one prior to any questioning, if they so wish.According to Miranda, unless those rights are not read, any evidence obtainedduring the interrogation may not be used against the defendant.Ever since Miranda was decided, state and federal courts have struggled witha number of issues with regard to its application, including the suspect’s beingin custody, which entitles the suspect to being readMiranda rights, the suspect’swaiving the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Some decisionsby the U.S. Supreme Court have attempted to answer these difficult questions.

Questions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson ◽  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The U.S

We have investigated the differences in support for the U.S. Supreme Court among black, Hispanic, and white Americans, catalogued the variation in African Americans’ group attachments and experiences with legal authorities, and examined how those latter two factors shape individuals’ support for the U.S. Supreme Court, that Court’s decisions, and for their local legal system. We take this opportunity to weave our findings together, taking stock of what we have learned from our analyses and what seem like fruitful paths for future research. In the process, we revisit Positivity Theory. We present a modified version of the theory that we hope will guide future inquiry on public support for courts, both in the United States and abroad.

scholarly journals Immunizing the Flock: How the Pandemic Court Rewrote Religious Freedom

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Paul Baumgardner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
The U.S

When coronavirus began to descend upon the United States, religious freedom advocates across the country sounded the alarm that citizens’ religious practices and institutions were under threat. Although some of the most extreme arguments championed by these advocates were not validated by our legal system, many were. This article explores the underappreciated gains made by religious freedom advocates before the U.S. Supreme Court over the past year. As a result of the “Pandemic Court”, religious freedom in the United States has been rewritten. This promises to radically change the educational, employment, and health prospects of millions of Americans for the rest of the pandemic and long afterwards.

Constitutional Law in 1942–1943: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1942

1944 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-288
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
West Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right

On February 15, 1943, Wiley B. Rutledge, Jr., a judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, took the seat on the Supreme Court vacated by the resignation in October, 1942, of Mr. Justice Byrnes. There were no other changes in the Court's personnel. Disagreement among the justices abated somewhat. In only a dozen cases of importance did either four or three justices dissent, as against some thirty cases in the last term. The Court overruled two earlier decisions, both recent; and the reversal in each case was made possible by the vote of Mr. Justice Rutledge.A. QUESTIONS OF NATIONAL POWER1. WAR POWER-CIVIL VERSUS MILITARY AUTHORITYWest Coast Curfew Applied to Japanese-American Citizens. In February, 1942, the President issued Executive Order No. 9066, which authorized the creation of military areas from which any or all persons might be excluded and with respect to which the right of persons to enter, remain in, or leave should be subject to such regulations as the military authorities might prescribe. On March 2, the entire West Coast to an average depth of forty miles was set up as Military Area No. 1 by the Commanding General in that area, and the intention was announced to evacuate from it persons of suspected loyalty, alien enemies, and all persons, aliens and citizens alike, of Japanese ancestry.

scholarly journals Is China Trying to Push the U.S. out of East Asia?

2015 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 59-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Wang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Asia ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Willingness To Participate ◽  
Monroe Doctrine ◽  
Western Discourse ◽  
The Future ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
The U.S

One of the key questions for understanding the future trajectory of regional order is whether or not China is trying to push the United States out of East Asia and build a China-dominated regional order. Some Western analysts accuse China of pursuing the Monroe Doctrine and excluding the United States from the region. This article argues that the Western discourse of China practicing the Monroe Doctrine is a misplaced characterization of China's behavior. Rather than having intention of pushing the United States out of East Asia and build a China-dominated regional order, China is pursuing a hedging strategy that aims at minimizing strategic risks, increasing freedom of action, diversifying strategic options, and shaping the U.S.' preferences and choices. This can be exemplified in five issue areas: China's ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and China's foreign policy activism, China-Russia relations, the Conference on Interactions and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and the New Asian Security Concept, as well as China-U.S. relations. Beijing has explicitly acknowledged the U.S. predominance in the international system and reiterated its willingness to participate in and reform the existing system. It concludes by suggesting that, for a more peaceful future to emerge in East Asia, the United States and China, as an incumbent power and a rising power, will have to accommodate each other, and negotiate and renegotiate the boundaries of their relative power, as well as their respective roles in the future regional order where Beijing and Washington would learn to share responsibilities and leadership.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document