<p>In this project, I examine why the judicial authority of the United States Supreme Court has increased. I propose a theoretical explanation of endogenous institutional change at the Court whereby the actions of the Court---specifically its decisions and the opinions in which it announces those decisions---have, over the long-run, altered the structures of the American separation-of-powers system. The Court has built up public support for the institution of judicial review to such a degree that its rulings are respected even when opposed by strong political actors---including the public. I evaluate this theory by analyzing three important transitional periods of Supreme Court history. The first case study explores the Court under Chief Justice John Marshall, and examines how the Court established judicial review as the most important means of constitutional interpretation. The second case study explores the Court's first cases interpreting the three Reconstruction Amendments, and shows that through these decisions the Court established itself as the arbiter of the meaning of these new amendments. The third case study looks at the Court's decision to hear reapportionment cases and its articulation of the political question doctrine that provided a legalistic method of expanding the political power of the Court. I conclude from these case studies that my theory provides a useful explanation for the expansion of judicial authority.</p> / Dissertation

Thesis (S.J.D.)--University of Toronto, 2004. / Adviser: David Dyzenhaus. Includes bibliographical rererences.

Habilitationsschrift--Münster, 1969. / Bibliography: p. [291]-305.

Thesis (M.L.I.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.), Political Science--University of Central Oklahoma, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 54-56).

Risālat al-Duktūrāh--Jāmiʻat ʻAyn Shams. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [613]-622) and index.

Thesis (Ph.D) - University of Queensland, 2006. / Includes bibliography.

Thesis (L.L.M. (Law))--Rhodes University, 2006.

(Contemporary Critique of Juristocracy) This theses deals with a comparative research of judiciaries of the United States, Israel and the Czech Republic. Consequently, it reaches a conclusion that all of these countries are undergoing a substantive political crisis, which leads to unhealthy empowerment of a judiciary system. The judiciary in abovementioned countries is moreover incapable of meeting challenges connected to the legislative deferrals, since the courts are unable to disconnects themselves from a social reality. The countries selected for the study was chosen in order to achieve as diverse sample as possible. That should lead to universally applicable outcome. Besides this empirical line of research, there is a deeper normative line attached. I believe it is vital to foresee a future political arrangement in a positive manner, even though there is a substantial risk of authoritarian regime's emergence during this transition. Still, the worst thing we can do is to kick a can of contemporary political imagination down the road forever. That prevents progress, but it also highlights another threat of authoritarian regime in name of protecting "freedom" against democracy or "democracy" against freedom. Regarding the content of the thesis, I pursue an abovementioned idea about highly...

A tese de Doutorado analisa a proposta de criação de um incidente de inconstitucionalidade no âmbito do controle concreto brasileiro, lidando com o debate legislativo e doutrinário a respeito do tema. Tem por objetivo contextualizar a ferramenta na atual discussão da fiscalização de constitucionalidade, sendo examinadas as suas principais vantagens e críticas. Ademais, além da defesa da criação de um incidente de inconstitucionalidade como classe autônoma processada no Supremo Tribunal Federal por meio da inovação contida na Proposta de Emenda Constitucional nº 406/01, a tese propõe o surgimento de um Cadastro Nacional de Decisões de Inconstitucionalidade, de responsabilidade do Conselho Nacional de Justiça. Por fim, o trabalho de pesquisa defende a reunião de ambas as inovações como instrumentos capazes de gerar o aperfeiçoamento da singular pluralidade que caracteriza a Jurisdição Constitucional no Brasil. / This research analyzes the proposal to create an incident of unconstitutionality under Brazilian judicial review, dealing with legislative and doctrinal debate about the issue. It aims to understand the tool in the current discussion of judicial review, and explores its advantages and problems. Moreover, beyond the creation of an incident of unconstitutionality as a separate procedural class by Constitutional Amendment Project nº 406/01, this research proposes the development of a National Data of Unconstitutional Decisions, associated to the National Council of Justice. Finally, the study supports both innovations as tools to promote improvement of judicial review in Brazil and its natural plurality, which is a regular feature in Brazilian Constitutional framework.