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.

A plea for caution: violent video games, the Supreme Court, and the role of science.

Abstract: On November 2, 2010, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association, with a ruling expected in 2011. This case addressed whether states have the right to restrict freedom of speech by limiting the sale of violent video games to minors. To date, 8 states have tried to pass legislation to this effect, with all attempts being found unconstitutional by lower courts. In large part, the Supreme Court's decision will be determined by its review and interpretation of the medical and social science literature addressing the effects of violent video games on children. Those on both sides of the violent video game debate claim that the scientific literature supports their opinions. Some involved in the debate have proclaimed that the debate is scientifically settled and that only people holding personal interests and biases oppose these "established truths." We review the historical similarities found in the 1950s comic book debate and studies identified from a PubMed search of the term violent video games showing both the harmful and beneficial effects of these video games. We define factors that physicians need to consider when reading and stating opinions about this literature. Opinions from past court rulings are discussed to provide insight into how judges may approach the application of these social science studies to the current legal issue. Although on the surface the case of Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association pertains only to the restriction of violent video games, it may establish principles about how medical and public health testimony can affect fundamental constitutional rights and how much and on what basis the courts will defer to legislators' reliance on unsettled science.

The Federal Constitutional Court in the German Political System

Abstract: The Federal Constitutional Court is an important policy-making institution in the German political system. As the guardian of the Basic Law, the Constitutional Court has played a critical role in umpiring the federal system, resolving conflicts among branches of the national government, overseeing the process of parliamentary democracy, monitoring the financing of political parties, and reviewing restrictions on basic rights and liberties. In each of these areas, the Court's decisions have shaped the contours of German life and politics. Its influence is fully the equal of that of the Supreme Court in American politics. Despite its “activist” record of nullifying laws favored by legislative majorities, the German Court has managed to retain its institutional independence as well as the trust of the general public.

Removal as a Political Question

Abstract: When should courts be responsible for designing federal administrative agencies? In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Supreme Court invalidated one specific mechanism that Congress employs to insulate agencies from presidential control. Lower federal courts have discerned wider implications in the decision’s linkage of presidential power to remove agency officials with democratic accountability. Applied robustly, the Free Enterprise Fund principle casts doubt on many agencies’ organic statutes. As the judiciary starts exploring those implications, this Article evaluates the effects of judicial intervention in administrative agency design in light of recent political science work on bureaucratic behavior, historical studies of state development, and comparative analyses of other countries’ civil services. Judicial intervention in agency design, I conclude, will not generate consistent and predictable outcomes and instead risks diluting majoritarian control and fostering policy uncertainty. In light of the tenuous correlation between changes in presidential removal power and the underlying constitutional good of democratic accountability, I argue, removal power questions should be ranked as “political questions” beyond federal court competence.

The Effects of Campaign Spending in State Supreme Court Elections

Abstract: Electoral competition has been an important subject of political science research over the past several decades. This article examines the effects of campaign spending on electoral competition in state supreme court elections. Specifically, I address the question: How do campaign expenditures affect the performance of incumbents in supreme court elections? I find that just like elections to Congress and state legislatures, electoral competition in state supreme court elections can be understood by looking at characteristics of the candidates, the state and electoral context, and institutional arrangements.