El modelo "social" de la discapacidad. Análisis y perspectivas desde la jurisprudencia. / The "social" model of disability. Analysis and perspectives from jurisprudence.

En el presente artículo se realiza un análisis sobre la evolución en los diversos contextos históricos y/o sociales de las personas con discapacidad. Para luego adentrarse en la normativa que tiene jerarquía constitucional en Argentina como la Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad, igualmente se analizan casos jurisprudenciales de Comisión Interamericana como la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos han intervenido en casos originados por la violación de derechos de las personas con discapacidad, y la justicia federal. Finalmente, se concluye con una relexión personal sobre la discapacidad como cuestión social, diferenciando el rol normativo, y judicial en Argentina. Abstract In this article an analysis is made of the evolution in the various historical and / or social contexts of people with disabilities. To later delve into the regulations that have constitutional hierarchy in Argentina such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, jurisprudential cases of the Inter-American Commission are also analyzed, such as the Inter American Court of Human Rights that have intervened in cases originating from the violation of rights people with disabilities, and federal justice. Finally, it concludes with a personal relection on disability as a social issue, diferentiating the normative and judicial role in Argentina.

8. The Judiciary and their Appointment

This chapter provides an introduction to the courts and tribunals judiciary. It discusses the judicial office, judicial appointments, judicial diversity and judicial training. There are different levels of judges within the courts and tribunals, with the senior judiciary comprising the Lord Chief Justice and Heads of Division. The Lord Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary. The Head of the Tribunals is the Senior President of the Tribunals. There are also part-time members of the judiciary known either as district judges, recorders, or Deputy High Court Judges depending on which court they sit in. This chapter assesses the similarities and differences between the court judiciary and tribunal judiciary. The quasi- judicial role of magistrates is also considered in this chapter. Discussing them in this chapter allows for their role to be considered and contrasted with that of district judges (magistrates’ courts) who also sit within the magistrates’ court.

Conclusion

So far, in the cases surveyed in this book, the Court has mostly deferred to Congress and to long-standing tradition, even in circumstances where tradition conflicts with some modern conceptions of the judicial power. Indeed, in many of the most interesting decisions upholding non-contentious jurisdiction, the challenge to the federal judicial role was based on the perceived demands of modern case-or-controversy rules. The pattern was set in ...

The Judicial Response to the Administrative State

This chapter describes the way a requirement of contestation was introduced into definitions of federal judicial power in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The case-or-controversy requirement arose as a tool with which federal courts could refrain from lending support to the investigatory and regulatory initiatives of the growing administrative state. Justice Stephen Field played a central role in the introduction of the contestation construct, and it took hold at the Supreme Court in the twentieth century, as progressive Justices came to embrace contestation as an essential limit on the judicial role in constitutional litigation.

A Practical Guide to Uncontested Adjudication

This chapter provides a primer on best practices in uncontested adjudication. Drawing lessons from the antebellum experience, the chapter reiterates the idea that important constitutional limits on federal adjudication—including the judicial finality requirement in Article III and the due process requirement of fair notice—fully apply to uncontested matters. The chapter further explains the importance of the judicial role in ensuring full development of the factual record in uncontested proceedings. The chapter explains how federal courts might best handle the uncontested adjudication of prisoner petitions through closer attention to the best practices outlined here. It concludes with a discussion of the federal judicial role in probate and domestic relations matters.