Suchergebnisse

The historical foundations of the American judiciary / William E. Nelson -- Judges and democracy : the changing role of the United States Supreme Court / Cass R. Sunstein -- Judicial independence and the majoritarian difficulty / Kermit L. Hall -- The judiciary and the separation of powers / Richard A. Brisbin, Jr. -- Judicial review and interpretation : have the courts become sovereign when interpreting the constitution? / Keith E. Whittington -- Paths to the bench : selecting Supreme Court justices in a "juristocratic" world / Joel B. Grossman -- Is judicial federalism essential to democracy? : state courts in the federal system / Paul Brace and Melinda Gann Hall -- American courts and democracy : a comparative perspective / Donald P. Kommers -- Courts in American popular culture / Lynn Mather -- What Americans know about the courts and why it matters / Gregory A. Caldeira and Kevin T. McGuire -- The impact of courts on American life / Gerald N. Rosenberg -- Judicial activism and American democracy / Doris Marie Provine -- Courts and the rights revolution / Charles R. Epp -- Discrimination through direct democracy : the role of the judiciary in the pursuit of equality / Sue Davis -- From republic to democracy : the judiciary and the political process / Mark A. Graber -- Courts and the definition of defendants' rights / David A. Yalof -- Public education, democratic life, and the American courts / Douglas S. Reed -- The future of the judicial branch : courts and democracy in the twenty-first century / Lawrence Baum -- Property rights and democracy

abstractIf the next stage of constitutional renewal is to be the strengthening of national institutions, consideration should be given to the judicial branch of government as well as to the Senate and House of Commons. In assessing reforms in this area it is important to distinguish the symbolic from operational consequences. First priority should be given to constitutional entrenchment of the Supreme Court. Although the significance of such an amendment is largely symbolic, it is needed to remove uncertainties created by references to the Supreme Court in the Constitution Act, 1982. A general guarantee of judicial independence should be abandoned as a misguided exercise in constitutional symbolism. From both a symbolic and operational perspective, reform of section 96 of the original constitution holds out the most interesting possibility of establishing the constitutional basis for a truly national judiciary.

The framers of the Constitution had consummate legal minds. Their desire for a government that would represent the needs of the many as well as the needs of a few led to the creation of a balanced government, which no other nation had formalized at that time. The Judicial Branch of the Federal Government is one title of this thought-provoking series that provides an exciting look into the three branches of the world's leading democratic government. Primary source documents and interpretations introduce readers to leaders, ideas, and legal principles at work. Readers will learn about presidenti.

The rule of law is the central milestone of modern democratic states. There is a gap, however, between what is on the constitutional texts and the lived-in world. The scholars use to concentrate their focus on the Executive Branch's role (and, sometimes, of Legislative Power) in situations of disregard of the Constitution. However, we chose to target the Judicial Branch and its decisions as contributions to the erosion of the rule of law and the production of democratic decay. We claim that the Judiciary started to play a crucial role in this process by assuming a populist bias and carrying out common lawfare practices – which can be well exemplified by judicial electoral decisions and the judicial decisions about Operation Car Wash. For researching the problem and discussing the hypothesis, we used the theoretical-deductive method. We carried out a literature review. We also use informative documentaries extracted from the media on the behavior of public authorities and the critical description of judicial decisions. The bibliography is interdisciplinary. We conclude that when the Judicial Branch becomes a political actor, it fosters a situation of instability and becomes an institution whose legitimacy depends on variations in the mood of society – which goes against the assumptions of democracy and the rule of law. This new judicial behavior causes an imbalance between the powers and the absence of an institution that moderates social conflicts. This situation contributed to the resurgence of the authoritarian identity of Brazilian civil society and the ideological polarization that culminated in the election of a far-right administration in 2018.

The rule of law is the central milestone of modern democratic states. There is a gap, however, between what is on the constitutional texts and the lived-in world. The scholars use to concentrate their focus on the Executive Branch's role (and, sometimes, of Legislative Power) in situations of disregard of the Constitution. However, we chose to target the Judicial Branch and its decisions as contributions to the erosion of the rule of law and the production of democratic decay. We claim that the Judiciary started to play a crucial role in this process by assuming a populist bias and carrying out common lawfare practices – which can be well exemplified by judicial electoral decisions and the judicial decisions about Operation Car Wash. For researching the problem and discussing the hypothesis, we used the theoretical-deductive method. We carried out a literature review. We also use informative documentaries extracted from the media on the behavior of public authorities and the critical description of judicial decisions. The bibliography is interdisciplinary. We conclude that when the Judicial Branch becomes a political actor, it fosters a situation of instability and becomes an institution whose legitimacy depends on variations in the mood of society – which goes against the assumptions of democracy and the rule of law. This new judicial behavior causes an imbalance between the powers and the absence of an institution that moderates social conflicts. This situation contributed to the resurgence of the authoritarian identity of Brazilian civil society and the ideological polarization that culminated in the election of a far-right administration in 2018.