|
Showing 1 - 25 of
26 matches in All Departments
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has
won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of
the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is
an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work,
keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and
interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists. This year's volume
features prominent scholars assessing major legal events,
including: Mark Tushnet on President Trump's "Muslim Ban" Kate
Andrias on Union Fees in the Public Sector Cass R. Sunstein on
Chevron without Chevron Tracey Maclin on the Fourth Amendment and
Unauthorized Drivers Frederick Schauer on Precedent Pamela Karlan
on Gay Equality and Racial Equality Randall Kennedy on Palmer v.
Thompson Lisa Marshall Manheim and Elizabeth G. Porter on Voter
Suppression Melissa Murray on Masterpiece Cakeshop Vikram David
Amar on Commandeering Laura K. Donohue on Carpenter, Precedent, and
Originalism Evan Caminker on Carpenter and Stability
From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl
Warren brought about many of the proudest achievements of American
constitutional law. The Warren declared racial segregation and laws
forbidding interracial marriage to be unconstitutional; it expanded
the right of citizens to criticize public officials; it held school
prayer unconstitutional; and it ruled that people accused of a
crime must be given a lawyer even if they can't afford one. Yet,
despite those and other achievements, conservative critics have
fiercely accused the justices of the Warren Court of abusing their
authority by supposedly imposing their own opinions on the nation.
As the eminent legal scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and David A.
Strauss demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, the Warren Court's
approach to the Constitution was consistent with the most basic
values of our Constitution and with the most fundamental
responsibilities of our judiciary. Stone and Strauss describer the
Warren Court's extraordinary achievements by reviewing its
jurisprudence across a range of issues addressing our nation's
commitment to the values of democracy and equality. In each
chapter, they tell the story of a critical decision, exploring the
historical and legal context of each case, the Court's reasoning,
and how the justices of the Warren Court fulfilled the Court's most
important responsibilities. This powerfully argued evaluation of
the Warren Court's legacy, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary
of the end of the Warren Court, both celebrates and defends the
Warren Court's achievements against almost sixty-five years of
unrelenting and unwarranted attacks by conservatives. It
demonstrates not only why the Warren Court's approach to
constitutional interpretation was correct and admirable, but also
why the approach of the Warren Court was far superior to that of
the increasingly conservative justices who have dominated the
Supreme Court over the past half-century.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that the theory
of an evolving, "living" Constitution effectively "rendered the
Constitution useless." He wanted a "dead Constitution," he joked,
arguing it must be interpreted as the framers originally understood
it.
In The Living Constitution, leading constitutional scholar David
Strauss forcefully argues against the claims of Scalia, Clarence
Thomas, Robert Bork, and other "originalists," explaining in clear,
jargon-free English how the Constitution can sensibly evolve,
without falling into the anything-goes flexibility caricatured by
opponents. The living Constitution is not an out-of-touch liberal
theory, Strauss further shows, but a mainstream tradition of
American jurisprudence--a common-law approach to the Constitution,
rooted in the written document but also based on precedent. Each
generation has contributed precedents that guide and confine
judicial rulings, yet allow us to meet the demands of today, not
force us to follow the commands of the long-dead Founders. Strauss
explores how judicial decisions adapted the Constitution's text
(and contradicted original intent) to produce some of our most
profound accomplishments: the end of racial segregation, the
expansion of women's rights, and the freedom of speech. By
contrast, originalism suffers from fatal flaws: the impossibility
of truly divining original intent, the difficulty of adapting
eighteenth-century understandings to the modern world, and the
pointlessness of chaining ourselves to decisions made centuries
ago.
David Strauss is one of our leading authorities on Constitutional
law--one with practical knowledge as well, having served as
Assistant Solicitor General of the United States and argued
eighteen cases before the United States Supreme Court. Now he
offers a profound new understanding of how the Constitution can
remain vital to life in the twenty-first century.
For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim
for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme
Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court
and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms,
and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has
won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of
the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is
an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work,
keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and
interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists. This year's volume
features incisive assessments of major legal events, including:
Gillian E. Metzger on The Roberts Court's Administrative Law Paul
Butler on Peremptory Strikes in Mississippi v. Flowers Nicholas O.
Stephanopoulos on Partisan Gerrymandering Kent Greenfield on Hate
Speech Jennifer M. Chacon on Department of Commerce v. New York
Micah Schwartzman & Nelson Tebbe on Establishment Clause
Appeasement William Baude on Precedent and Originalism Linda
Greenhouse on The Supreme Court's Challenge to Civil Society James
T. Kloppenberg on James Madison
For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim
for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme
Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court
and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms,
and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has
won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of
the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is
an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work,
keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and
interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists. This year's volume
features incisive assessments of major legal events, including:
Cristina M. Rodriguez on the Political Significance of Law Martha
Minow on Little Sisters of the Poor Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian
Vermeule on the Unitary Executive Cary Franklin on Living
Textualism David A. Strauss on Sexual Orientation and the Dynamics
of Discrimination Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash on the Executive's
Privileges and Immunities Reva B. Siegel on Abortion Restrictions
Maggie Blackhawk on McGirt v. Oklahoma Richard J. Lazarus on
Advocacy History
For forty-eight years, "The Supreme Court Review "has been
lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most
significant decisions. The" Review" is an in-depth annual critique
of the Supreme Court and its work, at the forefront of studies of
the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent
volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential
election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the
"United States v. American Library Association "case, failed
Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment
cases.
The latest volume in the Supreme Court Review series. Since it
first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim
for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an
in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work,
analyzing the origins, reforms, and modern interpretations of
American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges,
political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy
planners, and sociologists.
"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticisms of
recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."--Ethics
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won
acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting
of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social
scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and
present opinions and discusses important public law issues that
have come under Court consideration.
Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won
acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual
essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on
RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present
danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and
Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad
journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H.
Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first
amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the
preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner
Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.
Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won
acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual
essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on
RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present
danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and
Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad
journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H.
Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first
amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the
preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner
Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.
Since its inception in 1960, "The Supreme Court Review" has been
lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most
significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such
as the 2000 elections in Florida, Federalism and state sovereignty,
the Boerne v. Flores case, and numerous Fourth Amendment issues.
Distinguished participants analyze current and previous public
issues, sentiments, and the implications of Court decisions.
Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won
acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual
essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on
RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present
danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and
Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad
journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H.
Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first
amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the
preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner
Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.
Which Question? Which Lie? Reflections on the Physician-Assisted
Suicide Cases Martha MinowThe Value of Seeing Things Differently:
Boerne v Flores and Congressional Enforcement of the Bill of Rights
David ColeCongressional Power and Religious Liberty after City of
Boerne v Flores Christopher L. Eisgruber, Lawrence G. Sager.Freedom
of Speech, Shielding Children, and Transcending Balancing Eugene
VolokhPrintz, State Sovereignty, and the Limits of Formalism Evan
H. CaminkerO'Hagan's Problems Victor BrudneyTraffic Stops, Minority
Motorists, and the Future of the Fourth Amendment David A.
SklanskyEntrenching the Duopoly: Why the Supreme Court Should not
Allow the States to Protect the Democrats and Republicans from
Political Competition Richard L. Hasen"The Ideal New Frontier
Judge" Dennis J. HutchinsonThe Court and the Corporation:
Jurisprudence, Localism, and Federalism Gregory A. MarkDo not Go
Gently into that Good Right: the First Amendment in the High Court
of Australia Gerald N. Rosenberg, John M. Williams.
"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticism of
recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."--"Ethics"
"The Supreme Court Review" keeps you at the forefront of the
Court's most significant decisions by surveying its origins,
reforms, and interpretations of American law and compelling you to
consider the impacts of legal institutions and judicial opinion.
Diverse essays of informed analyses of past and present opinions
document the complexities of the Court and relevant public law
issues. Legal scholars, lawyers, judges, historians, political
scientists, economists, and journalists have won acclaim for their
contributions to each volume.
"The Supreme Court Review" receives accolades for providing
authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions
and their resonating impacts. Recent scholarship addresses school
vouchers via Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Federalism and state
sovereignty, the current state of political parties, and judicial
passivity. Distinguished participants across the field of Law
analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and
implications addressed under Court consideration.
For forty-five years, "The Supreme Court Review "has been lauded
for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most
significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered such issues
as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and
state sovereignty, the "United States v. American Library
Association" case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous
First and Fourth amendment cases.
Since its inception in 1960, "The Supreme Court Review" has been
lauded for providing authoritative discussions of the Court's most
significant decisions. Distinguished participants hereanalyze
current and previous public issues and sentiments and discuss the
implications of court decisions.
Skeptical Scrutiny of Plenary Power: Judicial and Executive Branch
Decision Making in Miller v. AlbrightCornelia T.L. Pillard and T.
Alexander Aleinikoff The New Etiquette of Federalism: New York,
Printz, and YeskeyMatthew Adler and Seth KreimerThe McCleskey
Puzzle: Remedying Prosecutorial Discrimination Against Black
Victims in Capital SentencingEvan Tsen Lee and Ashutosh Bhagwat
State Taxation and the Dormant Commerce Clause: The Object-Measure
ApproachJesse H. Choper and Tung YinLight on a Darkling Plain:
Intercircuit Conflicts in the Perspective of Time and
ExperienceArthur D. HellmanThe Plessy EraMichael J Klarman
Since it first appeared in 1960, "The Supreme Court Review" has won
acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting
of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social
scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and
present opinions and discusses important public law issues that
have come under Court consideration.
For forty-five years "The Supreme Court Review "has been lauded for
providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant
decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000
presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state
sovereignty, the "United States v. American Library Association"
case, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases. Distinguished
participants analyze current and previous concerns and attitudes
and discuss the implications of court decisions.
|
|