Legal rights for public employees are not clear in the area of social media speech. Following the Garcetti v Ceballos (2006) U.S. Supreme Court case, the pursuant to duty test was established. The social media speech of public employees, including educators, could be considered pursuant to their duties as an employee. This means that public employees are vulnerable to disciplinary action from their employer for social media speech. Furthermore, public employees are vulnerable even when they believe their social media speech is done as a private citizen. For this research study, 28 cases at the federal and state levels were analyzed. Seven of the examined cases were U.S. Supreme Court cases involving public employee speech rights. The other 21 cases were extracted from cases determined at the federal and state levels. The cases taking place after the Garcetti v Ceballos (2006) pursuant to duty test were analyzed to see how the test was applied to employee speech. Cases were also analyzed to see what other precedents from the courts had been applied. Additionally, private sector social media rights research was analyzed and reviewed to create more clarity for employees. The findings of the research show the courts have tested employee speech under the Pickering balancing test and the pursuant to duty test. The results of the case analyses were applied to provide clarity to employees regarding social media speech rights. Employee social media speech has to pass both tests to allow First Amendment protections. Employers need to create organization policy and training on this matter to protect the interest of both the organization and employees regarding avoidance of controversy.

Do Constitutional Court's rulings bind lower courts? Doctrinal and empirical perspectives Abstract Czech doctrinal researchers conclude that decisions of the Czech Constitutional Court are - at least in some respect - bind lower courts pro futuro. Although continental legal systems do not officially subscribe to a doctrine of precedent, a quasi-precedential role of the jurisprudence of higher courts is often defended by theorists. However, this theory of quasi-precedent has never been empirically tested in the Czech Republic. This dissertation constitutes a first such attempt as it examines whether courts actually decide in practice according to the jurisprudence of the Czech Constitutional Court. Specifically, it focuses on a guideline decision by the Czech Constitutional Court on parole decisions made in 2018. The guideline decision emphasized that parole decisions - made by courts in the Czech legal system and not by parole boards or committees - constitute a systemic problem since they are poorly reasoned and as a result they are ambiguous and not persuasive. The guideline decision in detail stated what reasons can be used to justify parole decision and how various factors, such as previous convictions, should be interpreted when deciding on parole. This dissertation studies two groups of first-level...

In this thesis, I attempt to justify the use of foreign precedent in Supreme Court constitutional cases and respond to various criticisms that have been brought forth. There are many critics of this process, as it is typically thought that Supreme Court Justices ought to look to their own domestic constitution and history of precedent when deciding cases. One of the critiques that I highlight is that the process is undemocratic and I respond to this by showcasing a distinction between procedural and constitutional conceptions of democracy. As well, I attempt to justify the process by showing how the utilization of foreign precedent can actually help judges uphold important values that we cherish in a constitutional democracy. I also attempt to do this for those who do not endorse the constitutional conception of democracy, by distinguishing between a community’s moral opinions and true moral commitments. I also examine two landmark cases Roper v. Simmons and Lawrence v. Texas, in order to establish the reasons that judges utilize foreign precedent; namely, as a source of further legal information and not due to any binding requirement. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

Many people assume that when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates a federal statute as unconstitutional, the Court's decision establishes binding precedent that narrows the U.S. Congress's available options. This thesis examines whether Congress has in practice been able to effectively circumvent Supreme Court precedents while still acting consistently with such precedents in a narrow sense by not repassing an identical statute. More specifically, this work explores whether the U.S. Congress was able to repass new statutes similar to those previously invalidated by the Rehnquist Court (1986-2005). To more fully probe this issue, this study examines how often Congress has responded in such a manner, how successful Congress was in replicating the initial invalidated statute's breadth and potency, the success of the amended statute's subsequent implementation or whether the new statutes survived judicial scrutiny, and lastly, whether legislative policy goals or Court precedents prevailed. The research focused on the Rehnquist Court because it invalidated an unprecedented 34 federal statutes. This analysis found that Congress offered 11 proposals, but only repassed four statutes attempting to replicate the initial invalidated statutes. Nevertheless, in the four instances of successful reenactment, Congress was able to achieve, in practice, indistinguishable potency and breadth in two statutes and identical potency with significantly narrower breadth in one statute. This work is significant because it demonstrates that occasionally Congress has utilized available tools—in this case repassing analogous statutes—to effectively counter Supreme Court precedents. The Supreme Court is not always the exclusive or irrevocable arbitrator of constitutional controversies. / Master of Arts

No description available.

Работа посвящена сопоставительному исследованию прецедентных имен в российском и британском массмедийном дискурсе с применением корпусной методологии. Цель исследования: анализ семантических и функциональных свойств прецедентных имён в текстах современного российского и британского медиадискурса в сопоставительном аспекте. Материал исследования составили 100 английских и 100 русских контекстов, с фрагментами, где были употреблены ПИ. Всего проанализировано 356 словоупотреблений прецедентных имен в составе текстов российских и британских СМИ, опубликованных за период с 2020 по 2024 год. Анализ показал, что что большая часть прецедентных имен приходится на политические и исторические темы, а имена известных мировых лидеров встречаются довольно часто и повторяются множество раз. Наименьшей сферой-источником прецедентных имен как в российской, так и в британской прессе оказалась «Спорт». Особое внимание на себя обращают случаи, когда в русскоязычном медиадискурсе большое количество ПИ отмечается именно в заголовках, в то время как в британском медиадискурсе прецедентные имена зачастую встречаются непосредственно в самом «теле» текста статья и не всегда вынесены конкретно в заголовки. В российских СМИ обнаруживается приём, который мы можем обозначить как так называемые «прецедентные ряды» или «прецедентные цепочки». Таким образом, прецедентность как форма проявления интертекста служит повышению эмоциональной, когнитивной значимости сообщаемой информации, более того, способствует увеличению прагматической и эстетической нагрузки текста. / The work is devoted to a comparative study of precedent names in Russian and British mass media discourse using corpus methodology. The purpose of the study is to analyze the semantic and functional properties of precedent names in the texts of modern Russian and British media discourse in a comparative aspect. The research material consists of 100 English and 100 Russian contexts, with fragments where precedent names were used. There were analyzed 356 usage patterns of precedent names in the texts of Russian and British media published between 2020 and 2024. The analysis showed that most of the precedent names fall on political and historical topics, and the names of famous world leaders are quite common and repeated many times. The smallest source-group of precedent names in both the Russian and British press turned out to be "Sport". Particular attention is drawn to cases when in the Russian-language media discourse a large number of PN is noted precisely in the headlines, while in the British media discourse precedent names are often found directly in the "body" of the text of the article and are not always specifically placed in the headlines. There is a method in the Russian media that we can designate as the so-called "precedent lines" or "precedent chains". Thus, precedent as a form of intertext manifestation serves to increase the emotional and cognitive significance of the information being communicated, moreover, it contributes to an increase in the pragmatic and aesthetic function of the text.

Pensar em terceirização de serviços, geralmente, leva-nos a pensar em precarização dos direitos trabalhistas. Pensá-los dentro da Administração Pública nos remete, diretamente, a pensar em fraudes e incansáveis embates jurídicos acerca da responsabilidade trabalhista dos órgãos públicos. Nesta Dissertação, pretende-se analisar como a doutrina jurídica trabalhista e administrativa tratam do tema terceirização de serviços, sobretudo ao abordarem a responsabilidade trabalhista da Administração Pública nos contratos de prestação de serviços de natureza continuada diante da redação do inciso V da súmula nº 331 do Tribunal Superior do Trabalho em aparente confronto com o acórdão da ADC 16/DF. Para tanto, diante da imprecisa definição e alcance do vocábulo terceirização, bem como da falta de sua regulamentação legal, consideramos necessário entendermos, primeiramente, o que o Supremo Tribunal Federal declarou a respeito da responsabilidade trabalhista da Administração Pública, como isto foi recebido pela Justiça do Trabalho por meio da amorfa Súmula nº 331 e como o STF tem reagido diante de sua conduta para então propormos possíveis parâmetros objetivos para o inciso V da súmula em questão. Para tanto, faremos uma revisitação ao conceito e ao alcance do tema, seus dilemas, suas figuras análogas, sua apropriação pela Administração Pública, sua recepção pela Constituição Federal de 1988 e algumas curiosidades. Buscaremos, ao final, evidenciar propostas de novos parâmetros para o inciso V da Súmula nº 331 do TST, além de trazer um conjunto de boas práticas ao administrador público que se propõe a licitar e terceirizar serviços, demonstrando o que, de fato, acontece na Administração Pública por trás das cortinas do comprador. Tudo isso deverá ser feito com fundamento e amparo nas diretrizes do Tribunal de Contas da União, Tribunal Superior do Trabalho, Superior Tribunal de Justiça e Supremo Tribunal Federal, cuja jurisprudência se revela, cada dia mais especializada e vinculante. / Thinking outsourcing services, usually leads us to think of casualization of labor rights. Thinking of them within the Public Administration links directly to consider legal frauds and tireless labor conflicts on the responsibility of government. In this thesis, we intend to analyze how the labor and administrative legal doctrine dealing with the issue of outsourcing services, particularly when addressing the labor liability of Public Administration in the provision of continuing nature service contracts on the letter of section V of the Precedent number 331 of the Superior Labor Court in apparent conflict with the judgment of the ADC 16 / DF. Therefore, given the imprecise definition and scope of the term outsourcing as well as the lack of a legal regulation, we consider necessary to understand, first, what the Supreme Court said about labor responsibility of public administration, how it was received by Labor Justice and how well the Supreme Court has reacted face to this conduct and then propose possible objective parameters for the item V of the precedent in question. Therefore, we will revisit the concept and theme of reach, its dilemmas, its similar figures, its appropriation by the public authorities and its reception for the Federal Constitution of 1988 as well as some curiosities. We will, in the end, besides the proposals of new parameters for Precedent 331 of the Superior Labor Court, a set of sound management to the public administrator that wants to bid outsourcing services, demonstrating that, in fact, what happens in public administration behind the buyer curtains. All this supported by the guidelines of the Court of Auditors of the Union, the Superior Labor Court, Superior Court and Supreme Court, whose precedents are revealed to be more and more a binding order.

A presente tese examina o papel do precedente judicial no sistema processual brasileiro, à luz das recentes reformas introduzidas na legislação, constitucional e infraconstitucional, com o duplo objetivo de dotar o precedente de maior valor e de uniformizar a jurisprudência, as quais demonstram que o momento é de desconstrução de paradigmas. Após delimitar o tema e discorrer sobre a sua importância, traçamos as premissas essenciais do estudo, definindo o que seja precedente judicial e jurisprudência, identificando as funções da jurisprudência e analisando a importância de uniformizá-la, para o fim de garantir maior isonomia e segurança jurídica aos jurisdicionados e de diminuir o tempo do litígio (CAPÍTULO 1). Em seguida, fazemos uma breve abordagem do assunto do ponto de vista histórico (CAPÍTULO 2) e sob a perspectiva da common law (CAPÍTULO 3). Passamos então para os dois capítulos centrais da tese. Analisamos o papel do precedente judicial no atual ordenamento, de acordo com a sua carga de eficácia, a saber, vinculante, quase vinculante e persuasiva (CAPÍTULO 4); e examinamos os demais meios de uniformização da jurisprudência, focando inclusive no problema dos Juizados Especiais Estaduais e Federais (CAPÍTULO 5). Finalmente, discorremos acerca de nossas conclusões, demonstrando que, apesar de o precedente judicial e a jurisprudência desempenharem papel relevante no nosso ordenamento (que configura um verdadeiro sistema misto, em que a lei reina, mas a jurisprudência governa), não há ainda premissas muito bem definidas, sendo necessárias alterações, de lege lata e de lege ferenda, para que seja conferido tratamento sistemático e harmônico ao assunto. / The present thesis analyzes the judicial precedent role within the Brazilian procedural system, in light of the recent reforms introduced in the legislation, either constitutional or infraconstitutional, with an aim at adding value to the precedent and standardizing jurisprudence, both of which make it evident that this is the moment for unbuilding of paradigms. After delimitating the matter and discussing its importance, we have outlined the assumptions which are essential for the study, defining what judicial precedent and jurisprudence are, identifying the functions of jurisprudence and analyzing the importance of standardizing it, so as to ensure greater isonomy and judicial assurance to those who are granted a jurisdiction and to reduce the litigation time (CHAPTER 1). Following, we have briefly approached the matter under a historical point of view (CHAPTER 2) and under the perspective of the common law (CHAPTER 3). And then we went to the two core chapters of the thesis. We have analyzed the role that the judicial precedent plays in the existing legal system, in accordance with its effectiveness, that is, binding, almost binding and persuasive (CHAPTER 4); and examined the other means for standardization of jurisprudence, with focus including on the issue of State and Federal Special Courts (CHAPTER 5). Finally, we have explained our conclusions, showing that, despite the judicial precedent and jurisprudence playing a relevant role in our legal system (which constitutes a real mixed system, where the law reigns, but the jurisprudence governs), there are no well-defined assumptions, yet, a few adjustments being necessary, lege lata and lege ferenda, so that a systematic and harmonic treatment can be given to the matter

O presente estudo propõe que a atual compreensão sobre interpretação judicial influencia no modo de ver a tutela dos direitos. Para isso, parte-se do entendimento de que trabalhar com o direito não é trabalhar com um objeto pronto antes da interpretação, mas com indeterminação. Isso conduz à conclusão de que a interpretação jurídica é um caminho que se percorre por meio de escolhas. Com o reconhecimento de que interpretar envolve escolher, realça-se o papel da justificação das decisões judiciais como ponto fundamental da atividade jurisdicional. Dado que a finalidade do processo civil é a tutela dos direitos, a justificação da decisão abre espaço para a tutela dos direitos em duas perspectivas. De um lado, considerando-se que no processo a interpretação tem o fim de decidir um caso, estrutura-se o discurso da motivação voltado à obtenção de uma decisão justa para as partes, o que corresponde a um meio de colaborar para a tutela dos direitos numa perspectiva particular. De outro, considerando-se que por meio da resolução do caso reduz-se a sua indeterminabilidade, estrutura-se o discurso do precedente voltado à tutela dos direitos numa perspectiva geral por duas frentes: promove-se um tratamento isonômico das pessoas e cria-se um ambiente mais seguro para o desenvolvimento da vida social. / This study proposes that the current understanding of judicial interpretation influences the way we understant the protection of rights. In order to achieve this conclusion, we start from the understanding that dealing with the law does not means to deal with a given object finished before the interpretation process, but with indeterminacy. This leads to the conclusion that legal interpretation is a path that runs by making choices. With the recognition that interpretation involves choosing, it is emphasized the role of the justification of judicial decisions as a key point of judicial activity. Given that the purpose of civil proceedings is the protection of rights, the justification of the decision opens the way for the protection of rights in two perspectives. On the one hand, considering that in the judicial process the interpretation happens for the function of dispute resolutions, it is possible to oganize a discourse of the judicial reason giving aiming to achieve a fair decision for the parties, which corresponds to a means to colaborate for the protection of rights in a particular perspective. On the other hand, considering that through the resolution of the case the indeterminacy of the law is reduced, it is possible to organize a discourse of the judicial precedent aiming to achieve the protection of rights in a broad perspective by two fronts: promoting a isonomic treatment of people and creating a safer enviroment for the development of social life.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:20:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Heitor Pereira Villaca Avoglio.pdf: 1295577 bytes, checksum: 29fd822368e0a8d9722ff5e4b1354f0b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-03-30 / This paper focuses on the figure of precedent. Brazilians constitutional and processes reforms lead off to a new expertise: the system of binding decisions. The primarily founded basis for this new model is the utilitarian interests and the production targets, which does not seem satisfactory to itsopposite side: the correct cognition and reasoning of justice. At first, this paper looks into the stare decisis technique: a sort of a mechanical system that searches the judicial court´s precedents, typical in countries with Common Law traditions. Reached certain conclusions, the author embraces the theory ideate by Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy, mainly the qualitative assortment between rules and principles. After a review about the need to rely on a paradigm of discourse, this paper concludes that that theory of stare decisis and the model proposed by the legislatives reforms are insufficient in order to propitiate a full understanding of the whole precedent theory, and suggests a third kind of legal standard of law, endowed with legal force by means of reason, which was first conceived by Jürgen Habermas doctrine. With this new initial concept, the author proposes a new figure for the stare decisis cognition, by legal certainty, accountability, argumentative basis, etc. At last, finishes by rejecting the existing legislative model, arguing that it reveals the revival of a paradigm which has long surpassed: the judge as the mouth of the law / O presente trabalho enfoca a figura do precedente. As reformas constitucionais e do processo iniciaram uma nova mentalidade no direito brasileiro: a de um sistema de decisões vinculantes. Propostos moldes para tal sistema, com base principalmente nos interesses utilitaristas e de metas de produção, eles não se mostram satisfatórios para o outro lado da moeda: a correta cognição e fundamentação da justiça. Recorre o trabalho, inicialmente, a uma investigação sobre o stare decisis: uma espécie de mecânica do sistema de precedentes judiciais nos países de tradição do common law. Alcançadas certas conclusões, o autor adota a teoria de Ronald Dworkin e Robert Alexy, notadamente a classificação qualitativa das normas jurídicas entre regras e princípios. Após uma crítica sobre a necessidade de se apoiar em um paradigma discursivo, o trabalho conclui que esta teoria e o modelo de súmula vinculante proposto pela reforma não são suficientes para uma compreensão integral dos precedentes, pelo que propõe seu conceito como terceira espécie de norma jurídica, dotada de força normativa por meio de razões, com o que muito se buscou em Jürgen Habermas. Com este novo conceito inicial, o autor propõe novas roupagens às noções de stare decisis, segurança jurídica, responsabilidade argumentativa, etc., rechaçando por fim o modelo existente pela razão de se tratar de uma retomada de um paradigma há muito superado: o juiz bocada‐ lei