The relationships among governmental institutions are some of the most studied phenomena in political science. Yet these complex interactions remain largely unexplained due to the difficult task of developing accurate measures that lead to quantifiable tests that enhance explanation and prediction. This work centers on the interactions of United States Supreme Court justices with other political actors. The goal of this dissertation is to better understand the relationship between the Supreme Court and its institutional environment. In short, I ask: What factors affect Supreme Court justices’ voting decisions? I approach this question from several different angles while making use of a unique dependent variable—Yearly Supreme Court justice ideal point. This variable is a variant of the ideal points calculated by Michael A. Bailey of Georgetown University (Bailey, 2007). My empirical models consider the effects of numerous independent variables on this dependent variable. One of the unique aspects of this study is that it considers the effects of a wide variety of factors purported to affect judicial behavior. There are four main theories of judicial decision-making, and my empirical analyses test notions exported from all of them. In designing and testing my models, I draw especially on the developing approach of new institutionalism—an approach to the study of judicial politics that emphasizes the influence of external, non-judicial political actors on judicial behavior. Ultimately this work will show what factors constrain the actions of Supreme Court justices and to what degree they do so. This research has many implications for larger theoretical concerns of political science, specifically formulating questions about the independence of the judiciary and contains relevant questions for democratic theory as well.

This paper will attempt to explore the history and function of judical disagreement behaviour using information from both the Canadian Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. The evolution of national high court decision making, highlights the changing role of courts within the political and public spheres, as well as the increasing authority courts have over policy. This changing role reinforces the need to study the role of courts on law. I will use minority opinions from the Laskin and Dickson courts to study what disagreement reveals about the decision making process. Judicial disagreement has largely been summed up into two deficient stereotypes: the dissent as "serious" disagreement and the separate concurrence as inferior disagreement to the dissent. I will dispel this fallacy by introducing the five categories created to describe a new way of thinking about judicial disagreement and to shatter the old stereotypes. / vii, 149 leaves ; 29 cm.

No description available.

No description available.

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt submitted to Congress “The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1937,” often simply called the Court-packing bill. The president hoped to circumvent the Court, which for years had been overturning New Deal programs, by appointing six new justices. However, the bill disguised its true intentions behind a veil of improving judicial efficiency. This misdirection backfired; the bill failed and Roosevelt’s popularity plummeted just months after a landslide reelection. This thesis examines the origins of the infamous Court-packing bill. It argues that Roosevelt was largely a background figure in the development of the plan, as he charged Attorney General Homer Cummings with finding a solution to the Court’s obstinacy. Cummings was the driving force behind the bill, particularly with regards to keeping it secret from other advisers and hiding its true intentions. Roosevelt’s most crucial mistake was in relying almost exclusively on his cunning attorney general.

Damages for personal injury The diploma thesis focuses on the analysis and evaluation of the recodified legal regulation on damages for non-pecuniary loss arising from personal injury in the light of its comparison with the relevant English common law. On the background of the historical evolution of the method for assessing the amount of damages for non-pecuniary loss arising from personal injury, as well as through the comparison of Metodika Nejvyššího soudu k náhradě nemajetkové újmy při ublížení na zdraví (bolest a ztížení společenského uplatnění podle § 2958 občanského zákoníku) with Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases, the diploma thesis arrives at a conclusion in favour of the development and application of the former, which it deems to have been a suitably chosen pre-emptive measure that would allow Czech legal practice to approach damages for non-pecuniary loss arising from personal injury in a consistent and proportionate fashion right from the moment of the coming into effect of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code, without having to overcome a period of relative legal uncertainty, during which standardised amounts of damages would have been developed through judicial practice, as was the case in the English common law. As regards the...

When Donald Trump took the stage as the Republican presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention in July 2016, he made a historical appeal to LGBTQ Americans: to the boisterous applause of a Republican audience, he promised "to protect LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology." Utilizing this historical moment as an indicator of shifting political views around LGBTQ rights in the Republican Party and the US nation-state as a whole, this paper links contemporary iterations of the War on Terror to the legalization of same-sex marriage in June 2015. Connecting same-sex marriage to the US nation-building project, I argue that the "dignity" newly available to certain queer folks via the institution of marriage makes possible an articulation of queer-defensibility that services a Republican investment in the aging War on Terror and the sustained targeting and hyper-surveillance of Muslims globally.

O objeto de estudo desta dissertação recai sobre as funções jurisdicionais do Superior Tribunal de Justiça no Estado Democrático de Direito, visando verificar uma possível mudança na sua compreensão, atividades e competências, desde a sua criação pela Constituição de 1988 até os dias atuais e seu papel no desenvolvimento do Direito. Para tanto, pautado nas mudanças ocorridas na passagem do modelo de Estado Legislativo Liberal para o Estado Democrático de Direito, estuda-se a evolução do papel Judiciário e suas funções como prestador de serviços e poder do Estado. Nesse sentido, a fim de verificar os modelos de Corte que serviram de matriz para a organização do Poder Judiciário no ocidente, as diferenças de suas funções e os sistemas em que se encontram inseridas, o presente trabalho destaca a estrutura e competências da Corte de Cassação Francesa, seus reflexos na Europa continental, e o papel desempenhado pela Suprema Corte estadunidense, clássico exemplo de Corte de Precedentes. Assim, a partir de modelos distintos de Corte, esta dissertação faz a análise da formação e estruturação do Judiciário nas Constituições brasileiras, para poder analisar, o momento de criação, as funções, prerrogativas e competências do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e a potencial mudança na sua compreensão frente às alterações legislativas e constitucionais ocorridas desde 1988, notadamente da criação de um sistema de precedentes pelo Novo Código de Processo Civil. Por fim, o trabalho se dedica a análise de alguns julgados proferidos pelo STJ, que possam exemplificar a atuação da Corte no Estado Democrático de Direito, agindo esta como órgão apto a promover, ao lado do Poder Legislativo, o desenvolvimento do Direito em harmonia com as evoluções sociais. / The object study of this dissertation relapses about the Superior Court of Justice jurisdictional functions on the Democratic State of Law, aiming to verify a possible change on its comprehension, activities and competences, since its creation by the 1988 Constitution until the current days and its role on the law development. Therefore, guided on the changes made on the passage from the Liberal Legislative State to the Democratic State of Law, is studied the evolution on the Judiciary role and its functions as service provider and State power. In this way, in order to verify the Court models that served as pattern to the organization on the Judiciary on the west, the differences on its functions and the systems that are included on it, the present paper point out the structure and the competences of the French Court of Cassation, its reflexes on the continental Europe, and the role played by the American Supreme Court, a classical Precedent Court example. Thus, from the distinct Court models, this dissertation makes analyses on the formation and organization of the Judiciary on the Brazilian Constitutions, in order to analyze, the creation moment, the functions, prerogatives and competences of the Superior Court of Justice and the possible change on its comprehension in front of the legislatives and constitutionals changes happened since 1988, notably from the creation of a precedents system by the New Procedural Civil Code. Finally, the paper apply to analyze of some judgments given by the Superior Court of Justice, that can exemplify the action of the Court on the Democratic State of Law, acting as a public agency capable to promote, next to the Legislative, the development of the law in harmony with the social evolutions.

Após a promulgação da Constituição de 1988, o Supremo Tribunal Federal passou a integrar a vida cotidiana da população, por meio das diversas informações sobre seus julgamentos, os quais envolvem, cada vez mais, questões políticas, com impacto sobre a vida dos cidadãos. Essa atuação da Corte tem despertado algumas críticas, relacionadas principalmente à sua legitimidade democrática para decidir sobre assuntos políticos e a uma suposta violação do princípio da separação de Poderes. Esse debate está inserido no contexto mais amplo de protagonismo do Poder Judiciário brasileiro no século XXI, expressado principalmente pela expansão da jurisdição constitucional, o que, por sua vez, se deve à consolidação do sistema de controle de constitucionalidade e a uma nova interpretação constitucional. Com efeito, a Constituição de 1988 expandiu as competências do Supremo, incitando o exercício de sua função política. As críticas feitas à Corte em razão de sua atuação com relação a questões políticas estão relacionadas a dois fenômenos, a judicialização da política e o ativismo judicial, sendo este considerado por parte da doutrina como uma indevida interferência do Poder Judiciário no âmbito de atuação dos Poderes Legislativo e Executivo. Casos como o reconhecimento da união estável homoafetiva foram considerados expressão desse ativismo. No entanto, é possível abordar o assunto da legitimidade democrática da Corte e da separação de Poderes de forma diferente, mais flexível. As teorias do diálogo, nessa medida, apresentam uma nova proposta de interação entre o Supremo Tribunal Federal e o Poder Legislativo, conferindo compreensão mais atual da democracia e da separação de Poderes. Isso porque prescinde da opção de predomínio do Legislativo ou do Judiciário em dar a última palavra sobre a constitucionalidade de leis e atos normativos. Desse modo, este trabalho visa a demonstrar, que há de se procurar saídas à rígida estrutura da Teoria da Separação de Poderes de Montesquieu, a fim de que a Constituição possa ser concretizada mediante uma efetiva colaboração dos Poderes. / After the promulgation of the Constitution of 1988, Brazilian Supreme Court became part of everyday life of the population due to the various information about its trials, which involve, increasingly, political issues that impact the life of Brazilian population. Such performance of the Court has aroused some criticism, mainly related to its democratic legitimacy to decide on political affairs and to the violation of the principle of the separation of Powers. This debate is embedded in the broader context of the Brazilian Judiciary protagonism in the XXI Century, specially expressed by the expansion of constitutional jurisdiction, which is due to the consolidation of the judicial review system and a \"new\" constitutional interpretation. Indeed, Constitution of 1988 expanded the powers of the Supreme Court, urging the exercise of its political function. The criticisms addressed to the Court by reason of its performance with respect to policy issues are related to two phenomena: the \"judicialization of politics\" and \"judicial activism\", which are considered by the doctrine as an undue interference by the Judiciary on the performance of the Legislative and Executive branches. Cases such as the recognition of homo-affective union were considered stable expression of activism. However, it is possible to approach more flexibly the issue of democratic legitimacy of the Court and of the separation of powers more flexibly. Theories of dialogue present a new proposal for interaction between the Supreme Court and the legislature, giving more current understanding of democracy and separation of powers. It reveals an alternative to waive predominance of the Legislature or the Judiciary to give the \"last decision\" on the constitutionality of laws and normative acts. Thus, this study aims to demonstrate, there to seek outlets to the rigid structure of Montesquieus Separation of Powers, so that the Constitution can be achieved through effective collaboration of Powers.

A pesquisa aborda os aspectos positivos e as debilidades das teorias da proporcionalidade, analisando o diálogo entre as interpretações doutrinárias constitucionalista e penalista quanto ao tema. Tendo como base um contexto social marcado pelo recrudescimento do poder punitivo, por distorções na tensão liberdade-segurança e pela abertura do sistema jurídico a influxos de seu entorno, o trabalho busca identificar o papel da proporcionalidade em sentido amplo na estabilização normativa envolvendo as relações jurídicas conflituosas em direito penal. Tendo como hipótese de investigação a ideia de que a proporcionalidade é utilizada frequentemente como artifício retórico nominalista, servindo nas argumentações jurídicas tanto à limitação quanto à justificação das intervenções punitivas, a pesquisa se dedica a testar tal afirmação preliminar por meio de dois estágios de análise: (i) primeiramente, é desenvolvido um arcabouço teórico que possibilita que discute o conteúdo dogmático das regras de proporcionalidade e sua funcionalidade na interpretação penal, buscando com isso viabilizar a (ii) verificação empírica e crítica do sentido normativo atribuído pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal à proporcionalidade no direito penal nos anos de 2011 e 2012. / The research addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the proportionality theories through a dialogue between constitutional and criminal legal studies. The investigation aims at identifying the proportionality role in the stabilization of normative standards related to conflicting relations concerning criminal law, within the context of the increasing of the punitive power, of distortions regarding the tension between liberty-security and of the legal systems opening to the expansive flows deriving from laws environment. The research hypothesis is that proportionality is frequently used within legal discussions as a nominalist and rhetorical resource, contributing to both the limitation and the justification of state penal measures. Therefore, the investigation tests such fundamental preliminary statement through two analytical stages: (i) first, the research develops a theoretical framework, which allows the discussion of the dogmatic contents of the proportionality rules and its functionality concerning criminal law interpretation. As a result of the first stage, the research performs (ii) an empirical verification and critical evaluation of the normative sense assigned by the Brazils Supreme Court to the proportionality within criminal law cases among 2011 and 2012.