No description available.

The focus of this investigation is the relationship of the United States Supreme Court's functional performance to its environment. Three functions of courts are noted in the literature: conflict resolution, social control and administration. These functions are operationalized for the United States Supreme Court. Hypotheses are developed relative to the general performance of these three functions by all courts. Box-Jenkins time series analysis is then used to test these hypotheses in relation to the performance of the United States Supreme Court. The primary analysis rests upon a data set that includes all non-unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court from 1916 to 1986. A supplemental analysis is conducted using all formal decisions for the 1953 to 1986 period. The results suggest that intellectual resources, legal resources, modernization, and court discretion are significant influences on the functional performance of the United States Supreme Court. Future research must consider these influences in the development of a general theory of courts.

Tom Clark has fulfilled a dual role in the development of the American legal system: He has served as a moderating influence, often arbitrating the differences between opposing factions on the Court; and, he has served as a figure of caution and restraint upon the members of the Court, developing a judicial philosophy which is deferential to other units of government.

Depuis l'adoption de la nouvelle Constitution démocratique du Brésil en 1988, la Cour suprême joue un rôle de plus en plus significatif au sein du système politique brésilien. Constamment sollicitée pour contrôler la constitutionnalité des lois, le renforcement de ses attributions en matière de contentieux constitutionnel fait aujourd'hui de la Haute juridiction un organe législateur partiel participant, aux côtés du chef de l'État et du Congrès, à la formation de la volonté générale. Dans ce cadre, comme dans toutes les démocraties contemporaines comprenant un mécanisme de garantie juridictionnelle de la Constitution, le développement de la justice constitutionnelle au Brésil conduit à une remise en cause de la démocratie classique de type électorale fondée sur une confusion entre la volonté du peuple et celle des gouvernants élus. Partant du postulat que le fonctionnement démocratique s'inscrit désormais dans une perspective réflexive, cette thèse propose d'analyser, à travers l'étude de la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême, les changements opérés au sein du régime démocratique brésilien afin de savoir si les modifications qui en découlent ont entraîné un dépassement du modèle démocratique traditionnel ayant donné lieu à une démocratie dite « réflexive ». / Since the adoption of the new democratic Constitution of Brazil in 1998, the Supreme Court has played an increasingly significant role within the Brazilian political system. Constantly asked to review the constitutionality of laws, the further extension of its jurisdiction in constitutional law, currently renders the High court a partial legislative body involved, along with the Head of State and Congress, in the formation of general will. In this context, as in all contemporary democracies containing a mechanism of judicial review that guarantees the supremacy of the Constitution, the development of the constitutional justice of Brazil has led to a questioning of classical electoral democracy based on a confusion between the will of the people and that of electected officials. Based on the premise that the functioning of democracy must be understood as reflexive, this thesis proposes to analyze, through the study of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the changes made within the Brazilian democratic system in order to determine if the modifications have resulted in an overtaking of the traditional democratic model that has given rise to a democracy called « reflexive ».

[pt] O presente trabalho, por meio do método reconstrutivo de abordagem, investiga recentes alterações performáticas (2007-2008) do Supremo Tribunal Federal como indicadoras de ativismo judicial. Para tanto, realiza uma revisão bibliográfica sobre o conceito de ativismo judicial no âmbito das jurisdições constitucionais, constatando a versatilidade semântica da expressão, conforme o modelo que se adote de jurisdição constitucional. Sob o prisma de uma teoria discursiva do Direito, a pesquisa propõe critérios para a identificação de ativismo judicial nas jurisdições constitucionais. Reconstruindo um sistema analítico de conceitos, a pesquisa obtém instrumentos para proceder à análise de discursos recentes do Supremo Tribunal Federal, finda a qual, identifica, com os critérios anteriormente propostos, a presença do fenômeno estudado. São, ainda, levantadas possíveis causas para as recentes alterações performáticas do Tribunal e, em vias de conclusão, apontam-se objeções ao perfil ativista do Supremo Tribunal Federal. / [en] The current work, by means of the reconstructive method of approach, investigates recent performative alterations (2007-2008) of the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Supreme Court of Brazil) as signs of judicial activism. Thus, it carries through a bibliographical review of the concept of judicial activism in the scope of the constitutional jurisdictions, evidencing the semantic versatility of the expression, according to the model of constitutional jurisdiction that is adopted. Under the prism of a discursive theory of Law, the research considers criteria for the identification of judicial activism in the constitutional jurisdictions. Reconstructing an analytical system of concepts, it provides instruments to proceed to the analysis of recent speeches of the Supremo Tribunal Federal. At the conclusion of the analysis, the presence of the studied phenomenon is identified, with the criteria previously considered. Possible causes for the recent per formative alterations of the Court are, still, raised and, in summation, objections to the activist profile inaugurated by the Supreme Federal Court are pointed out.

This comparative legal analysis evaluates the issue of terrorism and how it has been dealt with respectively by the United States and Israeli Supreme Courts. Since the events of 9/11, combating terrorism has become one of the primary concerns of the US government while it is a matter that has pervaded Israeli policy since its birth as a nation-state. The analysis is centered on examining how each state‘s Supreme Court has confronted the issue with the Israeli Supreme Court using a ―Business as Usual‖ model and the US taking an ―Emergency Powers‖ approach. It is argued that terrorism is an ongoing issue that cannot be justified as an emergency and the US Court would do better in adopting Israel‘s method of adjudication in these matters. It is also suggested that the US could learn from Israel‘s policy towards torture as the US policy has largely been cruel and unsuccessful.

This comparative legal analysis evaluates the issue of terrorism and how it has been dealt with respectively by the United States and Israeli Supreme Courts. Since the events of 9/11, combating terrorism has become one of the primary concerns of the US government while it is a matter that has pervaded Israeli policy since its birth as a nation-state. The analysis is centered on examining how each state‘s Supreme Court has confronted the issue with the Israeli Supreme Court using a ―Business as Usual‖ model and the US taking an ―Emergency Powers‖ approach. It is argued that terrorism is an ongoing issue that cannot be justified as an emergency and the US Court would do better in adopting Israel‘s method of adjudication in these matters. It is also suggested that the US could learn from Israel‘s policy towards torture as the US policy has largely been cruel and unsuccessful.

Michael Walzer has forwarded an argument that defends an exemption from adherence to Jus in Bello when a state finds itself in a situation of "supreme emergency." The argument is morally problematic due to the fact that it defends the direct and intentional targeting of non-combatants, a restriction which has traditionally been considered as inviolable in the Just War tradition. This thesis seeks to demonstrate a further problem for Walzer's position, the fact that his argument is sufficiently broad that it may be co-opted by parties whom Walzer wishes to exclude, practitioners of contemporary terrorism. My method will be to demonstrate certain deficiencies in Walzer's argument, through analysis of the paradigm case he presents. I will then proceed to present two cases for the adoption of his "supreme emergency" defense by the terrorist organizations Al Qaeda and Hamas. I will show that both of these cases may ultimately fail under closer scrutiny, but will conclude that the ability for two such cases to be constructed demonstrates the ability for Walzer's defense to be adopted by an entity which does not suffer these same failings, ultimately dooming Walzer's argument.

This dissertation engages previous research in political science and psychology by arguing for the importance of oral arguments from a communication perspective, examining justices' rhetorical discursive interaction in oral arguments, introducing Sensemaking as a new model of judicial decision making, and discussing the legal and cultural impact of justices' rhetorical discursive interaction in Morse v. Frederick, Kennedy v. Louisiana, and District of Columbia v. Heller. In contrast to the aggregate behavioral models and longitudinal studies conducted by political scientists and psychologists, this study examines these specific cases in order to gauge each justice's individual interaction in oral argument and to determine how certain justices may have controlled the discursive flow of information within oral arguments, which in turn may have influenced the Court's decision making ability. The dissertation begins with an introduction, providing an overview of the development and study of legal rhetoric from the Greeks to present day. A review of prior literature in law, political science, and psychology displays how fields outside of communication view oral arguments and reveals where communication may provide valuable contributions to the study of Supreme Court oral arguments. Theoretical and methodological approaches adopted for the study of oral arguments are discussed. Analysis within the dissertation begins with an overview of the inherent complexity found within oral arguments and applies the previously discussed theoretical and methodological approaches to the case of Morse v. Frederick as a means of determining theoretical and methodological validity. Following analysis of Morse v. Frederick, a second case, Kennedy v. Louisiana is analyzed to determine if similar results will occur. Final consideration is given to a third case, District of Columbia v. Heller, to understand whether justices' behavior may deviate in more socially and politically sensitive cases. The dissertation concludes with suggestions for lawyers and judges based upon this study's findings and makes recommendations to scholars for further areas of research.

The presence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution of Canada has transformed the historic discourse about what types of people should be appointed to the Supreme Court and the manner in which they should be selected. During the period between 1949, when the Supreme Court replaced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain as Canada's highest appellate body, and the Charter's entrenchment in 1982, the debate centered almost exclusively on questions of federalism. Specifically, the provinces argued that in a federal country, it is inappropriate that the status and composition of the court of last resort be left to the sole discretion of the central government. The Charter, with its enumeration of a variety of social categories, has produced new demands that the Court be more socially representative. Feminist legal scholars and women’s advocacy groups claim that a more representative judiciary in general and Supreme Court in particular would perform both symbolic and instrumental functions, while ethno cultural organizations have to date concentrated almost solely upon the symbolic dimension. By contrast, claims for self-government and separate justice systems illustrate that many aboriginal leaders believe their peoples’ grievances can best be met through disengagement from, rather than further integration into, Canadian political and legal processes. The Charter's presence also has conditioned demands for are formed appointment process. Now that the Court is to serve as the arbiter of citizen-state relations, many suggest, it is improper for the state to have sole control over who is appointed to that body, and therefore a more participatory and pluralistic appointment process is advocated. Clearly, these two broadly-defined reform agendas can conflict with one another. While the provinces demand more diffuse government involvement in the appointment of judges, those concentrating on the Court's Charter responsibilities believe that the state already unduly dominates the process. However, the current debate has further, largely unexplored consequences for potential reform. The failure of most participants in the debate, be they governments, scholars or advocacy groups, to articulate coherent approaches to questions of jurisprudential theory, combined with the difficulties inherent in applying the concept of representation to a judicial body, renders their critiques less valuable as guides to reform. Worse, their inadequate treatment of these issues often results in such critics undermining the legitimacy of the institution whose reform they seek.