Supreme court

About: Supreme court is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 41858 publications have been published within this topic receiving 306787 citations. The topic is also known as: court of last resort & highest court of appeal.

Television News and the Supreme Court: All the News that's Fit to Air?

Abstract: List of tables Acknowledgements 1. Television news: a critical link between the Supreme Court and the American public 2. The Supreme Court beat: a view from the press 3. Television news and the Supreme Court: opportunities and constraints 4. A tale of two cases: Bakke and Webster 5. A tale of two terms: the 1989 and 1994 court terms 6. 'The Supreme Court decided today ...' - or did it? 7. Which decisions are reported? It's the issue, stupid! 8. Television news and the Supreme Court: all the news that's fit to air? Appendix: schedule of interviews Notes References Index.

Extremely preterm birth and parental authority to refuse treatment--the case of Sidney Miller.

Abstract: In 1990, a neonatologist resuscitated a severely premature infant against the wishes of the parents. The child survived with severe disabilities. The parents sued the hospital for battery and negligence. In 2003, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of the physicians and hospitals. According to the ruling, physicians who are faced with split-second, life-or-death decisions do not need parental consent to provide life-sustaining treatment to minors.

Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraints on the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000

Abstract: To date, no study has found evidence that the U.S. Supreme Court is constrained by Congress in its constitutional decisions. We addressed the selection bias inherent in previous studies with a statute-centered, rather than a case-centered, analysis, following all congressional laws enacted between 1987 and 2000. We uncovered considerable congressional constraint in the Court's constitutional rulings. In particular, we found that the probability that the Rehnquist Court would strike a liberal congressional law rose between 47% and 288% as a result of the 1994 congressional elections, depending on the legislative model used.

Frozen Rights in Canada: Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster

Abstract: The trickster is alive and well. The Supreme Court of Canada illustrated this in the recent cases of R. v. Vanderpeet,1 R. v. Gladstone,2 R v. N.T.C. Smokehouse3 and R. v. Pamajewon4 when it considered how it would define Aboriginal rights "recognized and affirmed" under section 35(1) of the Canadian Constitution.5 Until these judgments were released, the country's highest court had supplied very little guidance concerning the test it would use to identify those rights protected by section 35(1). In 1982 Aboriginal rights were placed within Canada's newly patriated Constitutional Act, and outside of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms,6 at the insistence of many Aboriginal governments.7

Rethinking the New Deal court : the structure of a constitutional revolution

Abstract: Rethinking the New Deal Court challenges the prevailing account of the New Deal era Supreme Court, which holds that in the spring of 1937 the Court suddenly abandoned jurisprudential positions it had staked out in such areas as substantive due process and commerce clause doctrine. In this view, the impetus for such a dramatic reversal was provided by external political pressures manifested in FDR's landslide victory in the 1936 election, and by the subsequent Court-packing crisis. Author Barry Cushman, by contrast, discounts the role that political pressure played in securing this "constitutional revolution." Instead, he reorients study of the New Deal Court by focusing attention on the internal dynamics of doctrinal development and the role of New Dealers in seizing opportunities presented by doctrinal change. Recasting this central story in American constitutional development as a chapter in the history of ideas rather than simply an episode in the history of politics, Cushman offers a thoroughly researched and carefully argued study that recharacterizes the mechanics by which laissez-faire constitutionalism unraveled and finally collapsed during FDR's reign. Identifying previously unseen connections between various lines of doctrine, Cushman charts the manner in which Nebbia v. New York's abandonment of the distinction between public and private enterprise hastened the demise of the doctrinal structure in which that distinction had played a central role.