This paper examines the causes of the rise in vacancies on the federal courts in recent decades. Under President Barack Obama, the number of vacancies on the federal courts has sharply jumped. This is due to firm opposition by Senate Republicans, who have used the various procedural tools of that body to make it difficult for nominees to get confirmation. This antagonism is the result of a shift in how the parties view the courts and their role in the American political process. The Warren Court's expansion of substantive due process rights increased the Court's powers to the chagrin of conservatives. Republicans responded by blocking the nomination of Abe Fortas for Chief Justice; Democrats retaliated by defeating several of Richard Nixon's nominees to replace Fortas. These battles, and the prominence of legal issues such as abortion, would culminate in the vicious fight over Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Court, which influenced increasingly bitter fights in recent decades. I also propose a possible solution to the obstruction problem, inspired by procedures used in jury selection.

This study examined how Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS portrayed the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision from the time of the decision, January 21, 2010 until the mid-term elections November 2, 2010. The broadcast transcripts were read for emergent frames to see how the stations framed coverage. The cable channels had the most coverage. MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS framed the decision negatively, Fox News portrayed it positively, and CNN was neutral to negative in coverage.

No description available.

The introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has affected many elements of the constitutional system in Canada. This dissertation explores the Charter's relationship with liberal constitutionalism and Canadian federalism, and considers whether judicial review on Charter grounds has seen a progression, or a regression, from parliamentary to constitutional to judicial supremacy. Further, this dissertation considers whether Charter review has reduced provincial autonomy by imposing national values in provincial areas of jurisdiction when Charter review nullifies provincial statutes. Through a complex process referred to as the rebalancing of liberal constitutionalism, this study argues that a changed Charter jurisprudence by the Supreme Court of Canada and a changed policy process within the administrative state at the federal level have reduced the negative implications of Charter review for liberal constitutionalism and Canadian federalism. To advance this argument, the concept of Charter activism is introduced to demonstrate that the rebalancing of liberal constitutionalism is the product of the shifting equilibrium within two distinct elements that comprise Charter activism---judicial activism and bureaucratic activism. This study pursues three themes to demonstrate that the decline of judicial activism and the emergence of bureaucratic activism now converge at a point within Charter politics that facilitate the rebalancing of liberal constitutionalism and ensure that Charter review advances constitutional and not judicial supremacy. The first theme investigates the Supreme Court of Canada as a policy actor during Charter review, and analyzes Charter decisions between 1982 and 1997. The second theme considers the impact of Charter review on Canadian federalism and whether the Charter has centralized Canadian federalism and reduced provincial autonomy. The final theme investigates bureaucratic activism and the changes within the policy process at the fe

American Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of religious freedom is, for the most part, predicated upon a form of liberal democratic theory commonly known as "procedural liberalism." A close analysis of this jurisprudence reveals that because of this theoretical basis, the Supreme Court has been unable to craft a consistent jurisprudence that adequately addresses the reality of religion as a pluralistic social institution. Based upon the detailed critiques of procedural liberalism by such thinkers as Charles Taylor and Iris Marion Young, and drawing upon a concept known as "deep diversity" suggested by Taylor, a new general political theory, identified as the theory of deep diversity, is developed to answer these critiques. This theory is then used to reconceptualize Supreme Court jurisprudence and to demonstrate how the theory can be applied in a practical way to resolve the many problems inherent in existing religious freedom jurisprudence so as to support and advance religious pluralism.

The treatment of labor dismissal has been evolving in the legislation and in the jurisprudence. Whatis the current regulation of this subject? What is the procedure to ask for reparation in the case ofnon justified dismissal? These and other subjects related to this matter have been treated by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme  Court  inthe last binding precedents and in laboral courtrulings, respectively.Within this framework, the author illustrates us regarding the evolution of dismissal’s treatment in the legislation and recent jurisprudential pronouncements. / El tratamiento del despido laboral ha evolucionadotanto en la legislación como en la jurisprudencia. ¿Cuál es la actual regulación de dicha materia?¿Cuáles son las vías procesales para solicitar lasreparaciones en caso de despidos no justificados?Estas y otras cuestiones relacionadas han sido tratadas por el Tribunal Constitucional y la Corte Supremaen sus últimos precedentes vinculantes y plenos jurisdiccionales en materia laboral, respectivamente.En este marco, el autor nos ilustra respecto de la evolución del tratamiento del despido en la legislación y en los pronunciamientos jurisprudenciales recientes.

Submitted by Lucas Nunes Pellegrino (lucasnpellegrino@gmail.com) on 2018-06-29T22:12:52Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Reconhecimento e legitimação jurisprudencial do Goodwill no Brasil - uma interpretação a partir da teoria econômica de John R. Commons.pdf: 2302092 bytes, checksum: ed7addaefd4de0d7707280ee216db0f9 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Aline Aparecida Matias null (alinematias@fclar.unesp.br) on 2018-07-03T11:34:40Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 pellegrino_ln_me_arafcl.pdf: 2302092 bytes, checksum: ed7addaefd4de0d7707280ee216db0f9 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-03T11:34:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 pellegrino_ln_me_arafcl.pdf: 2302092 bytes, checksum: ed7addaefd4de0d7707280ee216db0f9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-04-23 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) / O texto objetivou analisar – de uma perspectiva do institucionalismo original – o processo de emergência, reconhecimento e legitimação jurídica/legal das formas de riqueza capitalistas intangíveis e incorpóreas em um país de capitalismo periférico, o Brasil. Claramente inspirado nas reflexões do economista institucionalista norte americano John R. Commons sobre a riqueza incorpórea e intangível, em especial o goodwill, e no papel do sistema legal na sua institucionalização, o texto toma a presença dessas formas de riqueza como sendo a expressão de maturidade do capitalismo monopolista, dada a imensa possibilidade que oferecem para a valorização do capital. O texto mostrou que no Brasil, à diferença dos EUA e outros países de capitalismo central, a presença de tais formas de riqueza foi inicialmente tardia (posterior aos anos 1920), e de certo modo limitada (circunscrita majoritariamente às atividades imobiliárias). Com a própria evolução e consolidação do capitalismo brasileiro, quando as novas formas de riqueza capitalistas foram ganhando peso e destaque, o sistema jurídico progressivamente foi se estruturando e se especializando para analisar e decidir sobre os conflitos originados da própria evolução do capitalismo brasileiro, em especial aqueles que envolveram o goodwill. Deste modo, buscamos compreender como tem sido o processo de regulamentação do goodwill pelo Estado na evolução do capitalismo e das instituições no Brasil, de modo a identificar e analisar casos jurídicos que possivelmente fundamentaram a lei, assim como as possíveis mudanças de entendimentos dos Tribunais de Cúpula (Supremo Tribunal Federal e Superior Tribunal de Justiça) daquilo que é considerado como prática “razoável” no que diz respeito ao goodwill, buscando delimitar os limites de ação dos indivíduos envolvidos e identificar as variáveis responsáveis por tais mudanças, sob a ótica da teoria de Commons. Vemos que parece haver consolidação incremental de jurisprudências acerca do goodwill ao longo das décadas (legitimando-o cada vez mais), principalmente em função do pequeno número de casos que subiram à terceira instância para decisão/delimitação das regras operacionais das transações que possam envolver esse ativo. / The text aimed to analyze - from a perspective of the original institutionalism - the process of emergence, recognition and law / legal legitimation of intangible and incorporeal capitalist wealth forms in a country of peripheral capitalism, Brazil. Clearly inspired by the reflections of North American institutional economist John R. Commons on incoporeal and intangible wealth, especially goodwill, and on the role of the legal system in its institutionalization, the text takes the presence of these forms of wealth as the expression of maturity of monopoly capitalism, given the immense possibility they offer for the valorization of capital. The text showed that in Brazil, unlike the USA and other countries of central capitalism, the presence of such forms of wealth was initially late (after the 1920s), and to a certain extent limited (mostly limited to real estate activities). With the evolution and consolidation of Brazilian capitalism itself, when the new forms of capitalist wealth gained weight and prominence, the legal system gradually became structured and specialized to analyze and decide on the conflicts originated from the very evolution of Brazilian capitalism, in particular those that involved goodwill. In this way, we seek to understand how the process of regulation of goodwill by the State in the evolution of capitalism and institutions in Brazil has been, in order to identify and analyze legal cases that possibly based the law, as well as the possible changes of understandings of the Courts of (Supreme Court and Superior Court of Justice) of what is considered a "reasonable" practice with respect to goodwill, seeking to delimit the limits of action of the individuals involved and to identify the variables responsible for such changes, from the point of view of the theory of Commons. We see that there seems to be an incremental consolidation of jurisprudence over goodwill over the decades (legitimating it more and more), mainly due to the small number of cases that have risen to the third instance for decision / delimitation of the operational rules of the transactions that may involve this active. / 148129/2016-1.

Within the framework of the process of constitutionalization of Law, the treatment towards antitrust  regulation is being discussed on the jurisprudential level. An idea has appeared that suggests that deciding against antitrust regulationis  beneficial for companies, but has a negative impact towards societyIn the present article, the author does a comparison between the Peruvian Constitutional Court jurisprudence about antitrust and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States, demonstrating that tending towards regulation is harmful for society.The author also raises the question about the reasons for which the Supreme Court of the United States has a clear and defined criteria to decide when it is convenient to regulate antitrust, called “decision theory”, while the Peruvian  Court  has an erratic and unjustified criteria to decide aboutregulation of antitrust. / En el marco del proceso de constitucionalización del Derecho, el tratamiento de la libre competencia se ha venido discutiendo a nivel jurisprudencial. Así, ha surgido la idea de que decidir no regu-lar la libre competencia beneficia a las empresas,mas no a la sociedad en general.En el presente artículo, el autor propone una comparación entre la jurisprudencia respecto a la libre competencia del Tribunal Constitucional peruano y la de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, buscando demostrar que, más bien, tender a la re- gulación es perjudicial para la sociedad.Asimismo, el autor abre la interrogante acerca de las razones por las cuales la Corte estadounidense tiene un criterio claro respecto a cuándo no es conveniente la regulación, mientras que el Tribunal peruano tiene un criterio errático y no justificado para tomar decisiones al respecto.

My dissertation project seeks to understand when and how do national judges play an active and significant role in how international legal orders do or do not affect their polities. Specifically, I look at when and how British judges play a role in how European Union law through the European Court of Justice and European human rights law through the European Court of Human Rights affect the British polity. These international legal orders contain both vertical and horizontal aspects. Vertical aspects include the highest court and its judges defined by the treaty, which operates as the international, hierarchical authority on the treaty and is tasked with ensuring the compliance of the member states of the treaty. Horizontal aspects include member state courts and judges who interact with other member state courts and judges as equals voluntarily to share an understanding of the law. Britain is interesting because it may seem like a counterintuitive place to find such dynamics. Britain has a strong resistance to international authority, a deeply entrenched idea of Parliamentary Supremacy, and a dualist legal tradition where Parliament translates international law into domestic law prior to its use by the courts, which contributes to a lack of expectation of British judges engaging in international judicial activism, making Britain a hard case. In this context, we should expect that international law only matters to the extent that domestic actors are forced to incorporate it by a strong international legal order with vertical supremacy and unambiguous authority. To the contrary, my dissertation shows that British judges are quite active in many international legal orders in ways that do not merely reflect the degree of established vertical legal authority. Through dynamics that are quite autonomous from British politicians' difficult interactions with international authority, British judges play a very active role in managing and integrating international law into British politics. To see these dynamics and understand how international law has affected British politics, we must pay special attention to horizontal legal integration. Horizontal legal integration occurs when judges intentionally and selectively borrow legal concepts and precedents from other national or international jurisdictions.

A presente pesquisa trata das relações entre o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e a ditadura civil-militar ocorrida no Brasil. O STF, como órgão máximo da justiça brasileira, estabelece em suas decisões um discurso de autonomia e imparcialidade. As fontes utilizadas para pesquisa e percepção desse discurso são recursos ordinários criminais julgados pelo Supremo entre 1964 e 1970. Esse era o único recurso que podia ser julgado por um tribunal civil, no caso o STF, e a última possibilidade de decisão por parte dos réus processados por crimes contra a segurança nacional. A tese divide-se em quatro capítulos, correspondendo a quatro lapsos temporais imbricados com decisões político-legislativas (do AI-1 ao AI-2, do AI-2 à Constituição de 1967, da Constituição ao AI-5 e após o AI-5). São analisadas questões relacionadas aos atos institucionais e às decisões judiciais do STF desde 1964, que demonstram que, apesar de o discurso de imparcialidade dos julgadores manter-se durante o governo autoritário, é visível a influência de questões políticas relacionadas à ditadura nos acórdãos pesquisados. / The present research is about the relations between the Supreme Court and the civil-military dictatorship in Brazil. The Supreme Court, as the most important organ of the Brazilian justice, establishes in its decisions a speech of independence and impartiality. The sources used for research and perception of this speech are ordinary criminal reviews judged by the Supreme between 1964 and 1970. This was the only judicial review that could be tried by a civilian court (in that case the STF), and the last possibility for a decision on the part of the defendants prosecuted for crimes against national security. The thesis is divided into four chapters, corresponding to four temporal lapses related with political-legislative decisions (from AI-1 to AI-2, from AI-2 to the Constitution of 1967, from the Constitution to AI-5 and after the AI-5). The analysis of the issues related to the institutional acts and the judgements of the Supreme Court since 1964 demonstrates that, although the speech of impartiality of judges remained throughout the period of the authoritarian Government, the influence of policy issues related in the dictatorship in the judgments that were surveyed was clear.