""Playing it Safe, How the Supreme Court Sidesteps Hard Cases and Stunts the Development of Law" is a book that will not only entertain but also remind us of the fact that many of the Court's most interesting decisions come not in its published written opinions addressing the merits of a case, but in their decisions not to hear a case based on purely procedural rationales. Recommended."
-- "New York Law Journal"

"Kloppenberg has provided the first sustained attack on the long-standing judicial practice of avoidance in at least a generation...her argument deserves careful attention."
--Cass Sunstein," New Republic," 10/01

It is one of the unspoken truths of the American judicial system that courts go out of their way to avoid having to decide important and controversial issues. Even the Supreme Courtfrom which the entire nation seeks guidancefrequently engages in transparent tactics to avoid difficult, politically sensitive cases.

"[A] well-informed book."
-- "Choice"

The Court's reliance on avoidance has been inconsistent and at times politically motivated. For example, liberal New Deal Justices, responding to the activism of a conservative Court, promoted deference to Congress and the presidency to protect the Court from political pressure. Likewise, as the Warren Court recognized new constitutional rights, conservative judges and critics praised avoidance as a foundational rule of judicial restraint. And as conservative Justices have constituted the majority on the Court in recent years, many liberals and moderates have urged avoidance, for fear of disagreeable verdicts.

By sharing the stories of litigants who struggled unsuccessfully to raise before theSupreme Court constitutional matters of the utmost importance from the 1970s-1990s, Playing it Safe argues that judges who fail to exercise their power in hard cases in effect abdicate their constitutional responsibility when it is needed most, and in so doing betray their commitment to neutrality. Lisa Kloppenberg demonstrates how the Court often avoids socially sensitive cases, such as those involving racial and ethnic discrimination, gender inequalities, abortion restrictions, sexual orientation discrimination, and environmental abuses. In the process, the Court ducks its responsibility to check the more politically responsive branches of government when "majority rule" pushes the boundaries of constitutional law. The Court has not used these malleable doctrines evenhandedly: it has actively shielded states from liability and national oversight, and aggressively expanded standing requirements to limit the role of federal courts.

Whilst paying lip service to the importance of public access to court proceedings and its corollary of unfettered media reporting,a trawl through common law jurisdictions reveals that judges and legislators have been responsible for substantial inroads into the ideal of open justice. Outside of the US, judges and legislators have long subordinated media freedom to report and comment upon matters relating to the administration of justice in order to safeguard the fairness of individual proceedings, public confidence in the administration of justice more generally or even individual privacy concerns. The subject matter of this book is a comparative treatment of constitutional protection for open justice. Focusing on developments in the legal systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia, the monograph draws upon the constitutionalization of expression interests across the common law world to engage in a much needed re-assessment of the basis and extent of permissible restraints on speech.

Multi-party litigation is a world-wide legal process, and the class action device is one of its best-known manifestations. As a means of providing access to justice and achieving judicial economies, the class action is gaining increasing endorsement - particularly given the prevalence of mass consumerism of goods and services, and the extent to which the activities and decisions of corporations and government bodies can affect large numbers of people. The primary purpose of this book is to compare and contrast the class action models that apply under the federal regimes of Australia and the United States and the provincial regimes of Ontario and British Columbia in Canada. While the United States model is the most longstanding, there have now been sufficient judicial determinations under each of the studied jurisdictions to provide a constructive basis for comparison. In the context of the drafting and application of a workable class action framework, it is apparent that similar problems have been confronted across these jurisdictions, which in turn promotes a search for assistance in the experience and legal analysis of others. The book is presented in three Parts. The first Part deals with the class action concept and its alternatives, and also discusses and critiques the stance of England where the introduction of the opt-out class action model has been opposed. The second Part focuses upon the various criteria and factors governing commencement of a class action (encompassing matters such as commonality, superiority, suitability, and the class representative). Part 3 examines matters pertaining to conduct of the action itself (such as becoming a class member, notice requirements, settlement, judgments, and costs and fees). The book is written to have practical utility for a wide range of legal practitioners and professionals, such as: academics and students of comparative civil procedure and multi-party litigation; litigation lawyers who may use the reference materials cited to the benefit of their own class action clients; and those charged with law reform who look to adopt the most workable (and avoid the unworkable) features in class action models elsewhere.

Responsive Legality is an important book about twenty first century justice. It explores the legal and moral values that twenty-first-century public officials use to make their decisions, engaging existing theoretical models of administrative justice and updating them to reflect changed twenty-first-century conditions. Together, these features of twenty-first century public administration are coined 'responsive legality'. Whereas twentieth-century public officials were generally driven by their concern for bureaucratic rationality, professional treatment, moral judgement and - towards the end of the century - the logics of 'new managerialism', the twenty-first-century public official embodies greater complexity in their characteristic pursuit of substantive and procedural justice. In responsive legality, government decision makers show a distinct concern for the protective parameters of the rule of law, a purposive pursuit of fair outcomes and a commitment to flexible decision making.

Using original empirical data and critiquing existing research, Samia Bano explores the experience of British Muslim woman who use Shari'ah councils to resolve marital disputes. She challenges the language of community rights and claims for legal autonomy in matters of family law showing how law and community can empower as well as restrict women.

The debate over race in this country has of late converged on the contentious issue of affirmative action. Although the Supreme Court once supported the concept of racial affirmative action, in recent years a majority of the Court has consistently opposed various affirmative action programs.

The Law of Affirmative Action provides a comprehensive chronicle of the evolution of the Supreme Court's involvement with the racial affirmative action issue over the last quarter century. Starting with the 1974 "DeFunis v. Odegaard" decision and the 1978" Bakke" decision, which marked the beginnings of the Court's entanglement with affirmative action, Girardeau Spann examines every major Supreme Court affirmative action decision, showing how the controversy the Court initially left unresolved in DeFunis has persisted through the Court's 1998-99 term.

Including nearly thirty principal cases, covering equal protection, voting rights, Title VII, and education, The Law of Affirmative Action is the only work to treat the Court decisions on racial affirmative action so closely, tracing the votes of each justice who has participated in the decisions. Indispensable for students and scholars, this timely volume elucidates reasons for the 180 degree turn in opinion on an issue so central to the debate on race in America today.

This volume explores the theory and practice of sentencing in England and Wales, exploring issues such as the role of previous convictions, offender remorse and sentencing female offenders, as well as drawing upon a new and unique source of data from the Crown courts.

This unique empirical study investigates how the method of judicial selection significantly affects state-supreme-court policies in several important areas of law-business, criminal procedure, and family law. After examining different theories and surveying the research about judicial selection, this comparative study of policies in six states-Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia-challenges current assumptions. The author finds that appointed judges prefer the interests of the individual over those of the state in criminal-procedure cases and are the most innovative in business law; that elected judges prefer the interests of the state over the individual; and that legislatively selected judges acquiesce to the policy preferences of other branches of government and are the most inactive in terms of policy initiation. For students and teachers in law, political science, and history; for lawyers and judges; for interest groups concerned about state policy; and for policymakers and other professionals concerned with American government and public administration.

This fifty-second volume of the Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals contains decisions taken by the International Criminal Court 16 July 2010-1 August 2011. It provides the reader with the full text of the most important decisions, identical to the original version and including concurring, separate and dissenting opinions. Distinguished experts in the field of international criminal law have commented on the decisions.The Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals is useful for students, scholars, legal practitioners, judges, prosecutors and defence counsel who are interested in the various legal aspects of the law of the ICTY, ICTR, ICC and other forms of international criminal adjudication.The Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals is also available online. This service facilitates various search functions on all volumes of all international criminal tribunals. See for information the online version of the series:http://www.annotatedleadingcases.com/about.aspx

This book is a collection of papers that address a fundamental question: What is the role of civil justice and civil procedure in the various national traditions in the contemporary world? The book presents striking differences among a range of countries and legal traditions, but also points to common trends and open issues. It brings together prominent experts, professionals and scholars from both civil and common law jurisdictions. It represents all main legal traditions ranging from Europe (Germanic and Romanic countries, Scandinavia, ex-Socialist countries) and Russia to the Americas (North and South) and China (Mainland and Hong Kong). While addressing the main issue the goals of civil justice the book discusses the most topical concerns regarding the functioning and efficiency of national systems of civil justice. These include concerns such as finding the appropriate balance between accurate fact-finding and the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, the processing of hard cases and the function of civil justice as a specific public service. In the mosaic of contrasts and oppositions special place is devoted to the continuing battle between the individualistic/liberal approach and the collectivist/paternalistic approach the battle in which, seemingly, paternalistic tendencies regain momentum in a number of contemporary justice systems."

Dalton combines the scholarly literature on public law and judicial impact with recent studies of policy implementation at the state level. He emphasizes the underlying constitutional, organizational, psychological, and political factors that shape public policy outcomes, arguing that a sound grasp of these factors can lead to an understanding of the gap between theory and practice in democratic politics. He examines the historical development and revision of the U.S. Supreme Court civil liberties rulings from the 1960s to the early 1980s as well as executive and congressional policy to regulate criminal records privacy. He also underscores the importance of the intergovernmental context in which state officials act as both leaders and intermediaries in the implementation of national policies. Dalton then combines these elements of analysis into a general theory of legitimation in order to render the significance of criminal justice policy for the American political system understandable as a whole.

Philips looks at the languages of judges in the courtroom to show that, while judges see themselves as impartial agents of the constitutional right to due process, there is actually much diversity in the way that judges interract with defendants due to their interpretations of the law, their attitudes toward courtroom control, and their own political-ideological stances regarding due process. She uses courtroom transcripts, interviews, and the written law itself to show how ideological diversity is organized in legal discourse.

Patricia Rosier died at her home in Fort Myers, Florida, in January of 1986, having sought the help of her prominent physician husband, Peter, to end her cancer-ravaged life with some measure of dignity. By November 1987, Peter had been indicted for first degree murder and faced death in Florida's electric chair. How could it happen? How does a loving husband and father get charged with first degree murder? This compelling true story shows just how easy it is in America's legal system. "Euthanasia" remains a crime in Florida and in most other states, yet the majority of such "criminals" are never prosecuted. But Dr. Rosier was singled out because he "confessed", both in a television interview and in writing, to believing in euthanasia and to assisting his wife's suicide. In Murder of Mercy every heart-pounding moment of Dr. Rosier's legal ordeal is vividly captured by famed trial attorney Stanley M. Rosenblatt, who, together with his wife and law partner, Susan, represented the accused. Describing an intriguing array of legal twists and turns, this riveting book is more than just gripping courtroom drama. Find out why Patricia's father and brothers sought immunity before they would testify. Feel the rush, the exhilaration, of planning defense strategy: How could anyone explain away Dr. Rosier's confessions? Could the Fort Myers judge be persuaded to change the location of the trial? Should Peter Rosier testify in his own defense? The powerful arguments of the State and the defense are laced with ridicule, sarcasm, and scorn: each side accusing the other of treacherous character assassination. Rosenblatt's penetrating assessment of judges, the use of expert witnesses, the exclusion ofrelevant evidence, attorney-client privilege, and the granting of immunity serve as the foundation for a searing critique of America's criminal justice system and the society it is designed to protect.

Is the American judiciary still the least dangerous branch, as Alexander Hamilton and legal scholar Alexander Bickel characterized it? Unlike legislatures or administrative agencies, courts do not make policy so much as direct and redirect policy as it is implemented. The judicial contribution to policymaking involves the infusion of constitutional rights into the realm of public policy, and as the government has grown, the courts have become more powerful from doing more and more of this. Powers and Rothman explore the impact of the federal courts, providing a brief account of the development of constitutional law and an overview of the judiciary's impact in six controversial areas of public policy.

Busing

Affirmative action

Prison reform

Mental health reform

Procedural reforms in law enforcement

Electoral redistricting

In each of these areas, the authors review significant cases that bear on the particular policy, exploring the social science evidence to assess the impact of the courts on policies--and the consequences of that intervention. Powers and Rothman conclude that judicial intervention in public policy has often brought about undesirable consequences, sometimes even for the intended beneficiaries of government intervention.

This special issue of Studies in Law, Politics and Society focuses on law and the liberal state; presenting an interdisciplinary and multifaceted approach to analysis of law and liberty. The first chapters focus on law's direct relationship with the American liberal state. John P. Anderson defends John Rawl's pragmatism; Adelaide Villmoare and Peter Stillman consider the 'Janus faces of law', a double vision of law where both sides of the face adhere to one another through neoliberalism; and Timothy Delaune examines jury nullification. The remaining chapters then go on to consider specific applications of the law within society. Susan Burgess provides a critical account of what implications the inclusion of gays in the US military has for understanding the means by which the liberal state uses law to include the previously excluded. Daniel Skinner then problematizes the body politics of American liberalism, as viewed through the lens of health policy and the final chapter from Beau Breslin and Katherine Cavanaugh explores how various legal and judicial policies have highlighted the clash between the state's imperial authority and Native American narratives.

Robert G Ingersoll (1833-1899) was a complex figure - a brilliant lawyer and orator who courageously advanced the concept of free-thought; a magnetic extrovert whose public esteem, eagerly sought, never earned him the private favours he so generously bestowed on others. Ingersoll was a staunch republican in the great tradition of Abraham Lincoln, and he vigorously championed such progressive causes as equal rights for blacks, women, and children; liberal divorce laws; and better wages and conditions for workers. Perhaps Ingersoll's greatest legacy derives from his daring rejection of religious superstition (during an era which saw a tremendous revival of spiritualism and religious fundamentalism) and his ardent belief in humanity.Ingersoll is considered one of the most prominent figures of the 19th century. From about 1880 to his death in 1899, he probably spoke to more Americans in person than anyone before or since; he had daily audiences of as many as three thousand people while he was on tour, several months a year for many years. Despite this, Ingersoll's career has not yet received the attention it clearly merits. In this comprehensive work, Frank Smith explores the life and thought of this charismatic figure, using newspaper accounts of the time and extensive quotations from Ingersoll's correspondence. Ingersoll's words provide a vivid portrait of 19th-century America from the stormy antebellum period to the beginnings of modern industrialism. His life reflects the great current of his age and speaks forcefully to the problems of our own.

When the first President Bush chose David Hackett Souter for the Supreme Court in 1990, the slender New Englander with the shy demeanor and ambiguous past was quickly dubbed a "stealth candidate". Determined to avoid a repeat of the firestorm surrounding President Reagan's nomination of the controversial Robert Bork, Bush opted for Souter, who had, remarkably, produced only one law review article in his legal career. Souter, an obscure but well-respected New Hampshire conservative, seemed unlikely to arouse the kind of passionate opposition that defined the Bork confirmation process. And, indeed, Souter was accepted onto the Court with little fuss. Today, fifteen years into his tenure, Souter remains as enigmatic and unpredictable as ever, a mystery even to avid Court watchers. Who is David Hackett Souter and what will be his legacy on the Supreme Court? Sifting through Souter's opinions, papers of the Justice's contemporaries and other relevant records and interviews, esteemed Supreme Court biographer Tinsley Yarbrough here gives us the real David Souter, crafting a fascinating account of one of the heretofore most elusive Justices in the history of the Court. Though Souter's record on legal issues was generally conservative before his arrival on the Court, his mixed views caused some concern among both the left and the right during the appointment process. His reclusive lifestyle and frugality added to his mystique, making him even more difficult to peg. His penchant for solitude and his seemingly narrow circle of close friends convinced some that the middle-aged bachelor was out of touch with the sort of "real world" problems the nation's highest court regularly confronts. Court watchers soon realized-to their delight or dismay-that President Bush's "stealth" justice was a traditional New England Republican deeply tied to the party's historic roots in the union and civil rights-in stark contrast to most Reagan-Bush I appointees. On the bench, Souter has embraced a flexible, evolving, and highly pragmatic judicial style that embraces a high regard for precedent-even liberal decisions of the Warren and Burger Courts with which he may have personally disagreed. Even more significantly, Souter has become a regular and very effective critic of the set of rulings via which his ostensible political brethren-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas-have abandoned precedent to assert their conservative vision. Ultimately, Yarbrough contends, Souter has become the principal Rehnquist Court opponent of the originalist, text-bound jurisprudence that many of the more conservative Justices profess to champion.

In These Estimable Courts Damon Cann and Jeff Yates explore how citizens feel about the government institutions at the front lines of jurisprudential policy-making in America - our nation's state and local courts. The book's central focus concerns a primary question of governance - why do people support and find legitimate the institutions that govern their lives? Cann and Yates evaluate the factors that drive citizens' support for their state and local courts and that influence peoples' perceptions of the proper role of these courts in our society, as well as how judicial policy-making should be made. A viable democracy depends upon citizen belief in the legitimacy of government institutions. Nowhere is this more evident than in judicial institutions. Courts depend heavily on a reservoir of public good will and institutional legitimacy to get their decrees obeyed by the public and implemented by other policy actors. It enables courts to weather the storm of counter-majoritarian decisions and remain effective governing bodies whose edicts are respected and followed. These Estimable Courts takes advantage of new original survey data to evaluate citizens' beliefs about the legitimacy of state courts as well as a number of important related concerns. These include peoples' views concerning how judges decide cases, the role of judges and courts in policy-making, the manner in which we select judges, and finally, the dynamics of citizens' views regarding compliance with the law and legal institutions.

Based on the wish to reopen an international comparative discussion on fundamental notions of civil procedure, this book offers a number of insights into procedural human rights from different jurisdictions and different points of view.