Suchergebnisse

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's principal policymaking body, uses 1,500 annual weighted case filings per authorized judgeship (judgeship position) in a bankruptcy court as an indicator of the need for additional bankruptcy judgeships for that court. Total annual weighted case filings for any specific bankruptcy court is the sum of the weights associated with each of the cases filed in the court in a year. Total annual weighted case filings per judgeship represent the estimated average amount of judge time that would be required to complete the cases filed in a specific bankruptcy court in a year. In May 2003 GAO testified on whether weighted case filings were a reasonably accurate measure of the case-related workload of bankruptcy judges. The accuracy of weighted case filings rests in turn on the soundness of the methodology used to develop them. GAO's work focused on whether the methodologies used to develop the current case weights and to revise and update those weights were likely to result in reasonably accurate measures of bankruptcy judges' case-related workload. This statement is based on GAO's May 2003 testimony on weighted case filings as a measure of bankruptcy judges' case-related workload and documentation provided by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) in June 2009 on subsequent efforts to update the current weighted filings measure."

Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "This testimony discusses the results of our review and assessment of bankruptcy court-weighted case filings, the workload measure the Judicial Conference first considers in assessing the need for additional bankruptcy judgeships. Weighted filings are a statistical measure of the estimated judge time that specific types of bankruptcy cases are expected to take. Congress asked us to assess whether weighted case filings are a reasonable means of measuring bankruptcy judges' case-related workload and to assess the methodology of any proposal to update the current case weights."

Execution of Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN) judges verdict in some nation administrative dispute resolution practice in Indonesia have not been properly implemented due to the absence of an executorial Instution as well as a strong legal basis lead to weak force power for verdict of the PTUN. Undang-undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara also do not explicitly and clearly regulate the issue of force of verdict PTUN and the execution of the verdict really depends on the goodwill of the Tata Usaha Negara Entity or Officials in obeying the law. How was the execution of the PTUN judges verdict? What was the reason for the unexecuted judges verdict? So that we can find out how the judges verdict was executed and the reasons why the judges verdict was not executed. We use sociological research method to search what happened. Executor of a decision required to overcome and minimize the PTUN judges verdict that was not executed as well as improvements to the basis of the Law which is more concrete and forces the execution of PTUN judges verdict so that no party were harmed. Pelaksanaan putusan hakim Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam praktek penyelesaian sengketa Administrasi negara di Indonesia sebahagiannya belum terlaksana sebagaimana semestinya yang disebabkan ketiadaan lembaga eksekutorial, maupun landasan hukum yang kuat mengakibatkan putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara tidak mempunyai daya paksa. Undang-undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara pun tidak mengatur dengan tegas dan jelas mengenai masalah daya paksa putusan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara, sehingga dalam pelaksanaan Putusan benar-benar tergantung pada iktikad baik Badan atau Pejabat Tata Usaha Negara dalam mentaati hukum. Bagaimana pelaksanaan putusan hakim PTUN.? Apa sebab tidak terlaksananya eksekusi putusan hakim tersebut? Sehingga dapat mengetahui bagaimana pelaksanaan putusan hakim dan sebab mengapa tidak terlaksananya putusan hakim tersebut. Dalam meneliti sengekta ini penulis menggunakan metode (Sosiologis research) lebih kepada penelitian lapangan ...

Not every constitutional case requires recourse to first principles, and indeed, most require more subtlety than such recourse can produce. The Rehnquist Court's free speech cases provide an example of the benefits of a more nuanced and pragmatist approach in the context of a mature jurisprudence. Rigid tiers of scrutiny are simply not flexible enough to accommodate both the legitimate goals of the legislature and the need to guard against illicit attempts at pure censorship of unpopular ideas. Some form of balancing-whether identified as such or simply evident in the application of intermediate scrutiny-is necessary to avoid either too much or too little invalidation. Inevitably, Justices will disagree (as will the rest of us). But that disagreement is narrower, less bitter, and less able to force precedent in bad directions when it comes in the form of disputes over practicalities rather than principles. As the pornography cases illustrate, a careful attention to context also forces judges to confront difficult issues by rising above their own prejudices rather than sweeping them under the rug through superficial analysis and meaningless buzzwords. Perhaps other areas of the Rehnquist Court's jurisprudence could benefit from the lesson provided by these free speech cases.

JUDGE FRANK JOHNSON'S ROLE IN THE REFORM OF ALABAMA'S MENTAL HEALTH AND PRISON FACILITIES SUGGESTS THAT JUDGES MAY HAVE GREATER CONTROL OVER THE AGENDAS OF POLICYMAKING THAT IS NORMALLY ASSUMED. THE JUDGE MAY BE MORE INTERESTED IN PUSHING STATE OFFICIALS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION THAN IN SECURING FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ANY SPECIFIC SET OF ABSOLUTE STANDARDS.