Supreme Court Decisions

About: Supreme Court Decisions is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1804 publications have been published within this topic receiving 17066 citations.

Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic

Abstract: This paper, pursuing themes indefatigably defended in this journal and elsewhere by Professors Jenny and Celia Kitzinger, explains what led me to write my own advance decision (AD) to refuse life-prolonging treatment if I become legally incapacitated to make my own healthcare decisions for longer than 3 months and am medically assessed as very unlikely to regain such legal capacity. I attach my Advance Decision to Refuse Life Prolonging Treatment to the online version of this paper for comment advice and possible general interest. I argue that while a Supreme Court judgement in 2013, followed by a Court of Protection judgement in 2015 greatly ameliorate my earlier concerns about excessive judicial emphasis on the sanctity of life, certain current requirements in the Code of Practice to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and in the Rules of the Court of Protection, especially Practice Direction 9E, concerning permanent vegetative state and minimally conscious state, seem clearly to contradict aspects of that Supreme Court judgement. If the logical implications of those legal requirements were thoroughly implemented medical practice would be substantially and undesirably skewed towards provision of treatments to prolong life that are unwanted, non-beneficial and wasteful of healthcare resources. I urge that these legal requirements are modified to make them consistent with the Supreme Court's judgement in Aintree v James.

Does the Attitudinal Model Explain Unanimous Reversals

Abstract: There is little doubt that the political attitudes of the justices on the Supreme Court have a significant impact on many outcomes adopted by the Court. But a third or more of Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, and in more than a fifth of their cases every year the Supreme Court unanimously reverses the decision below. The Attitudinal Model suggests that the reason for unanimity is that the political policy made by the court below is “extreme” when compared to the ideological range of the entire Supreme Court. We test the basic claim of the most prominent proponents of the Attitudinal Model that the political preferences of the justices provide a complete explanation for all of their decisions, including those decided unanimously. We find that none of the predictions of the Attitudinal Model are supported. Thus, while the ideology of the justices may drive many of their decisions, the Attitudinal Model does not provide an adequate explanation for unanimous decisions.

"Partial-birth abortion" and the Supreme Court.

Abstract: Abortion has long been, and remains, the most politicized medical procedure in the United States. It has been the subject of more state and federal legislation than all other medical procedures combined. The U.S. Supreme Court, which almost never hears cases about medical procedures, has regularly heard cases over the past 25 years concerning the constitutionality of various state laws designed to limit abortion. Thus, it was only a matter of time before the Court would hear a case on the constitutionality of laws restricting so-called partial-birth abortion.1 When the Court heard a challenge to Nebraska's law, statutes relating to . . .

Supreme Court decisions and women's rights : milestones to equality

Abstract: Since the publication of the first edition of "Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights in 2000", there have been significant developments both in the make up of the Court and the rulings it has issued. The past decade saw the departure of highly revered Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the historic appointment of the first Latina woman, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Over that same time period, there have been several important decisions affecting gender law, including: Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), which upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion signed by President Bush in 2003. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Rubber and Tire Co. (2007) found that too much time had lapsed for former-Goodyear employee Lilly Ledbetter to seek back wages for the years she received discriminatory lower pay. AT and T Corp. v. Hulteen (2009) held that companies that discriminated against pregnant women employees prior to passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, could carry that discrimination over into calculating pension pay. Featuring more than 100 cases and updated biographies, "Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights" provides a complete study of all the important issues and movements involving the Supreme Court and the role it plays in shaping women's rights.