Showing papers on "Supreme Court Decisions published in 1992"

Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court

Abstract: A substantial literature on lower federal courts and state courts suggests that the "haves" usually come out ahead in litigation because they possess superior resources for it and they reap advantages from their repeat player status. We investigate the success of 10 categories of litigants before the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts to determine whether the resources or experience of litigants has effects on Supreme Court outcomes paralleling those found in the courts below. While different categories of litigants are found to have very different rates of success, those differences do not consistently favor litigants with greater resources. A time series analysis of the success of different categories of litigants over the 36 years studied suggests that the changing ideological complexion of the Court has a greater impact on the success of litigants than differences among litigants in resources and experience. W e examine the impact of litigant status and the changing ideology of the U.S. Supreme Court on differences in the success rates of direct parties before the Court. Simply, we seek to explain why some categories of litigants win more frequently than others when appearing before the Court. Previous explanations have attributed differential success rates in lower federal courts to, inter alia, disparities between litigants of different status in judicial experience and resources. We argue, however, that differential success rates in Supreme Court decisions have more to do with the ideological composition of the Court and the Court's receptivity to the different types of legal claims made by litigants of different status. Previous research indicates that the status of litigants before American courts has substantial influence on judicial outcomes. Higher-status parties enjoy significant advantages in appellate courts and usually win. This has been demonstrated in the U.S. courts of appeals (Sheehan and Songer 1989) and, to a lesser degree, in state supreme courts (Wheeler et al. 1987). Curiously, the impact of litigant status on

The right to "just say no": a history and analysis of the right to refuse antipsychotic drugs.

Abstract: The article presents a complex history of the disordered development of the right to refuse antipsychotic drugs and attempts to analyze the complex legal, medical, and ethical issues involved. The article begins by describing the dual nature of the medication in providing therapeutic benefits while posing a substantial risk of hazardous side effects. After depicting the circumstances which led to the initial "right to refuse" litigation, the article analyzes the various legal grounds on which courts have based the right to refuse. Even when based on a constitutional source, the right to refuse is not absolute. The right must be balanced against the government's reasons for infringement. The article examines this balancing process by taking into account the private interests at stake, the level of intrusiveness presented by antipsychotic drugs, and the government's objectives behind forced treatment.The article addresses the two governmental interests which are used to justify forced medication. First, the government’s police power interest in preventing a mentally ill individual from harming himself or others is explained. Second, the government’s parens patriae interest in caring for those individuals who are unable to care for themselves is examined. A traditional precondition to forced treatment based on the parens patriae authority is a finding that the patient is incompetent to make his own treatment decisions. The article examines the concept of competency and describes recent medical research which documents that many drug refusals by mentally ill individuals are the product of rational and considered decisions. An emergency exception to the competency limitation on the parens patriae authority is also discussed. In addition, the article addresses whether the least restrictive alternative doctrine is applicable as another restriction on the government's ability to compel treatment under either the police power or the parens patriae authority. Next, the issue of procedural due process is addressed. The article describes the various models of procedural review adopted by courts in refusal cases, ranging from the implementation of a full array of due process procedures to unqualified deference to institutional decision making. A detailed analysis of the appropriateness of these review systems is undertaken.Finally, the article analyzes the substantive and procedural components of the United States Supreme Court's recent opinion on the refusal issue in Washington v. Harper. Although this decision is limited to a convicted prisoner’s right to refuse antipsychotic drugs, its interpretation could impact thousands of mentally ill and developmentally disabled individuals confined in civil institutions.In addition, as one commentator noted, the ramifications of Harper could extend to "even larger numbers of individuals residing in the community who are released from civil hospitals, diverted from the criminal justice system, or paroled from prison, on the basis that they accept treatment as a condition of their release." The article, therefore, concludes by examining the potential effects of the Harper decision on the right of an individual to refuse antipsychotic drugs outside the prison environment. This examination includes an analysis of the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Riggins v. Nevada in which the Court addressed the right of a pretrial detainee to refuse the administration of antipsychotic drugs.

Public School Educators′ Knowledge of Selected Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Daily Public School Operations

Abstract: Determines if high school educators were aware of selected legal decisions rendered by the Supreme Court that affect the daily operations of the public schools. Forty‐three principals, 63 assistant principals and 184 teachers were administered an instrument to assess their knowledge of public school law. Educators lacked knowledge in areas of school finance, corporal punishment, and teacher rights. Demonstrates the need to require courses in school law as a prerequisite for teacher certification and to fund heavily staff development training in law.

The center holds

Abstract: Inevitably, reading is one of the requirements to be undergone. To improve the performance and quality, someone needs to have something new every day. It will suggest you to have more inspirations, then. However, the needs of inspirations will make you searching for some sources. Even from the other people experience, internet, and many books. Books and internet are the recommended media to help you improving your quality and performance.

After Cruzan: the "values base" to advance directives.

Abstract: Technologic advances produce ethical quandaries for health care professionals and the public. Often difficult decisions must be made about treatment. In light of the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Nancy Cruzan, health care decisions surrounding life-sustaining treatment may be affected. National attention is refocused on advance directives (the living will and durable power of attorney for health care decisions). This article considers the possible need for additional "clear and convincing" evidence of the patient's wishes regarding these directives. Included is a Value History Form that provides an avenue of expression for patient values and beliefs.

Taking the right of freedom of commerical communication seriously

Abstract: Recent Supreme Court decisions have established second tier protection for commercial speech under the First Amendment by according it some, but not all, of the protections accorded ideological speech. The Court's arguments closely parallel John Staurt Mill's utilitarian arguments about liberty, liberty-limiting principles and trade in his classic essay,On Liberty, and hence are subject to the same defects as any utilitarian analysis and justification of a right. Recent philosophical apologies for the Court's bifurcated approach to free speech are unpersuasive. Commercial speech protects fundamental interests. There are important connections between freedom of commercial speech and political and personal autonomy. It is possible to extend full protection to commercial speech, while simultaneously minimizing its potential for abuse. Such considerations provide compelling arguments for taking the right to freedom of commercial communication seriously by according it full First Amendment protection and by restricting it only when competing and over-riding rights claims, or weightier considerations of justice, can be adduced.

The Referendum, the Courts and Representative Democracy in Ireland

Abstract: This article examines the four referendums held in Ireland between 1983 and 1987. Special emphasis is placed on the constitutional framework. It is argued that the 1937 Irish Constitution created a tension between representative democracy and judicial review. as well as between parliamentary supremacy and sovereignty of the people. This is encapsulated in Article 6.which states that all executive, judicial and legislative authority is derived from the people under God. This article was used by the Supreme Court to strikedown legislation which precipitated the 1984and 1987 referendums and to refuse injunctions in the 1983 and 1986 referendums. Finally, the four referendums were called in response to interest group pressure and Supreme Court decisions, which indicates shifts in Ireland away from the traditional Westminister model that has operated in practice in Ireland since 1922.

Metro broadcasting v. FCC: Supreme Court upholds FCC minority preference policies, but affirmative action victory seems tenuous at best

Abstract: The analysis provides a recent history of Supreme Court decisions on Title VI and Title VII issues in order to understand the Court's position on minority ownership of broadcast outlets. A doctrinal swing on the Court jeopardizes future minority merit and distress sale preferences for minority owners.

Abortion on the Supreme Court Agenda: Planned Parenthood v. Casey and its Possible Consequences

Abstract: PIP: On June 29, 1992, the US Supreme Court released its Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey opinion. A majority of the Court reaffirmed the essential holding of the landmark Roe v. Wade case, including a recognition of a woman's guaranteed constitutional right to choose an abortion before viability. At the same time, the Court eliminated Roe's trimester framework, established a new, less stringent undue burden standard for reviewing governmental limitations upon woman's right to choose, and applied this standard in upholding the constitutionality of most of Pennsylvania's abortion restrictions. Currently, 15 states have informed consent laws, and 13 states have laws requiring waiting periods between counseling and the abortion; many states also require parental notification or consent, some with the option of judicial bypass. Now that the Court has upheld the constitutionality of restrictions such as these, it is expected that states will enforce existing provisions and impose new limitations as well. In Illinois, the proposed Abortion Informed Consent Act would require the dissemination of particular information and then impose a 72-hour waiting period between counseling and abortion. In North Dakota, a state with only 1 abortion clinic, the State Attorney General announced that he expected to begin enforcing a 24-hour waiting period. And in Tennessee, as in other states, Casey may encourage courts to lift injunctions that have prevented enforcement of waiting periods or other restrictions. Casey explicitly implicates patient autonomy, the doctor patient relationship, and the First Amendment rights of health professionals. As the Court's new interpretation of Roe suggests, the right to privacy will never be immune from redefinition.

The Use of Deadly Force in Enforcing the Law: Gold in the Light of History *

Abstract: More than thirty-two years have passed since Supreme Court Justice Agranat's ruling that, even in the absence of alternative means to effect a lawful arrest, deadly force may be employed only where the arrest is pursuant to the commission of a felony. That ruling, in the case of Gold v. The Attorney General , stands unchallenged to this day. At the time that decision was handed down, Israeli case law provided a dearth of analytic tools for critical review. Thus, Gold was incorporated into Israeli law pristine and unencumbered by the entourage of learned comments that now regularly escorts Supreme Court decisions. It is not my intention to tarnish that purity of Gold by disclosing some undetected flaw in the ruling. Rather, I believe it is time that we take that ruling a step further on the course it set.

1992 REPORT CARD ON THE STAmS Sexual Rights in America

Abstract: A central component of SIECUS’ mission is to advocate for the rights of individuals to make responsible sexual choices. These rights include the right to information, the right to sexual health services, the right to engage in sexual behaviors with consenting adults, the right to live according to one’s sexual orientation, and the right to obtain and use sexually explicit materials. Recent Supreme Court decisions have delivered a clear message: the federal government through its Court decisions cannot be relied upon to protect individual sexual rights. In at least three recent decisions Bowers v. Hardwick, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Barnes v. Glen T&eater the Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to pass legislation that limit specific sexual rights. As a result of these decisions, states will play an increasingly important role in affirming or restricting sexual rights. Across the United States, there exists a patchwork of state legislation on sexuality-related issues. This review discusses and “grades” state laws on sexuality education, HIV/AIDS education, abortion, sexual orientation, sexual behaviors, and obscenity laws, and includes a state-by-state analysis on state legislation that may promote or restrict sexual rights.

How the Doctor Got Gagged

Abstract: To the Editor. —The article by Sugarman and Powers entitled "How the Doctor Got Gagged" 1 incorrectly characterizes the recent Supreme Court decision in Rust v Sullivan 2 as a "significant departure from established precedent." Apparently, this "significant departure" follows from their misperception of a general recognition by the judiciary of a right to "unrestricted communication within the physician-patient relationship." In reality, there is a long history of judicial tolerance of governmental regulation of physician-patient communication. Moreover, there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly denies the right of the people to regulate the delivery of medical care. One may ask, wouldn't we be better off if there was a recognized right to privacy in physician-patient communications? Indeed, as a practicing physician, I believe there should be such a right. The recent Supreme Court decision in Rust does not close the door to the establishment of such a right. What

Police Implementation of Supreme Court of Canada Charter Decisions: An Empirical Study

Abstract: Little empirical research has been done on the Charter's impact on the public policy process This paper presents the results of an empirical research study designed to fill that gap The study examined the manner in which a municipal police force and the RCMP implemented changes to procedures following two Supreme Court of Canada Charter decisions The paper concludes that, while steps have been taken to develop a process by which Supreme Court decisions are implemented, the process would be improved if one body were allocated responsibility for the provision of interim information to the police This special issue article is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: http://digitalcommonsosgoodeyorkuca/ohlj/vol30/iss3/2 POLICE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CHARTER DECISIONS: AN