Suchergebnisse

We will be debating the legacy of Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist as long as there is a Supreme Court. At the heart of that debate is a puzzle: How could a man so staunchly committed to judicial restraint preside over a Court that became during his tenure on the bench a more powerful actor in American political life than it was when he was appointed?

In this commentary on the debate on cultural studies, the commenter questions Susan Burgess's article Queer(Theory)Eye for the Straight(Legal)Guy (this volume), the author finds value in the juxtaposition of Queer Eye & the Rehnquist courts as a makeover & as a reversal, but claims that only three of the four central claims of queer theory that Burgess relates to the study of judicial politics are persuasive & relevant. Burgess contribution is asserted to be in providing illumination on the change of homosexual as a distinct legal category of person. Burgess ironic parody is concluded to offer insight, but LGBT rights advocates are warned of the possible diminishing of their power to wrest greater liberty & equality that has already been achieved with the weapons of liberal legalism. References. J. Harwell

A review essay on books by (1) Mark Tushnet, A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law (New York: W. W. Norton, 2005); (2) R. Shep Melnik, Deregulating the States: Federalism in the Rehnquist Court ([Evolving Federalisms: The Intergovernmental Balance of Power in America and Europe] Syracuse, NY: Campbell Public Affairs Institute, 2003); (3) John T. Noonan Jr., Narrowing the Nation's Power: The Supreme Court Sides with the States (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); (4) Keith E. Whittington, Taking What They Give Us: Explaining the Court's Federalism Offensive (Duke Law Journal 51, 2001); (5) Richard H. Fallon Jr., The "Conservative" Paths of the Rehnquist Court's Federalism Decisions (University of Chicago Law Review 69, 2002); (6) Timothy J. Conlan and Francois Vergniolle de Chantal, The Rehnquist Court and Contemporary American Federalism (Political Science Quarterly 116, 2001); (7) J. Mitchell Pickerill and Cornell W. Clayton, The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism (Perspectives on Politics 2, 2004) & (8) Frank M. Goodman [Ed], The Supreme Court's Federalism: Real or Imagined? ([Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Volume 574] Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001).

This analysis of the decision making of William H. Rehnquist from the beginning of his tenure as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1971 until he was nominated to be Chief Justice in 1986 presents a refreshing new perspective on the Burger Court's most conservative member. The common assessment of Rehnquist's career on the Supreme Court is that he has tried to put his own political agenda into effect--deciding as he wishes and justifying it later. Davis disputes that view through careful, insightful analysis of his opinions, his votes, and his public speeches. She ar.

In 1986, the Supreme Court's leading conservative, William H. Rehnquist, labeled by Newsweek as "The Court's Mr. Right," was made Chief Justice. Almost immediately, legal scholars, practitioners, and pundits began questioning what his influence would be, and whether he would remake our constitutional corpus in his own image. Would the center hold, or fold? This collected volume, edited by Martin H. Belsky, is the third in a series which includes The Warren Court and The Burger Court, both edited by Bernard Schwartz. It gathers together a distinguished group of scholars, journalists, judges, an.