Suchergebnisse

The California judiciary is one of three branches of the state government. This paper provides an overview of the current court system, its historical development, its relationship with the other branches of state government and the federal courts, and a comparison of California's judiciary with other states' judicial systems.

This note considers the performance of the South African courts in deciding environmental cases and suggests that, notwithstanding some good decisions, there are still too many decisions where the courts are not applying relevant legislative provisions or misinterpreting the law. It is suggested that the future acceptable performance of the courts not only rests on correct interpretation and application of the legislation, but also increased familiarity by judges with the technical environmental context within which the cases are situated. The role of legal practitioners in achieving this is also highlighted.

Into Jeffrey Tulis's argument that 'the rhetorical presidency signals and constitutes a fundamental transformation of American politics' he inserts parenthetically the question, 'Has the rhetorical presidency now given birth to the rhetorical judiciary?' Whether the rhetorical presidency birthed or simply predated the rhetorical judiciary is open to question. The existence of the rhetorical judiciary is not. Since the publication of The Rhetorical Presidency, judges and their interlocutors have ratified one of the insights that grounded Tulis's question, while challenging another. They have borne out his fear that judges would increasingly respond to attack; his worry about the vacuity of confirmation hearings for those nominated to the Supreme Court, however, has not been similarly confirmed. Adapted from the source document.