Showing results by publisher "-emdashery books-" in Judicial Systems

When Wendy Murphy was a young prosecutor, she learned that the deck is stacked in favor of criminal defendants. Between their arrest and (potential) conviction, murderers, rapists, and drug dealers get more than a fair shake: they get an unfair advantage, often at the expense of their victims.

In this engaging volume, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson argues that America's most brilliant legal minds have launched a set of cosmic constitutional theories that, for all their value, are undermining self-governance. Judge Wilkinson calls for a plainer, simpler, self-disciplined commitment to judicial restraint and democratic governance, a course that alas may be impossible so long as the cosmic constitutionalists so dominate contemporary legal thought.

Drugs, Adultery, Bribery, Homosexuality, corruption - and the Supreme Court?!? Your high school history teachers never gave you a book like this one! Secret Lives of the Supreme Court features outrageous and uncensored profiles of America’s most legendary justices - complete with hundreds of little-known, politically incorrect, and downright wacko facts.

Vor dem Gesetz sind alle gleich. Doch was geschieht, wenn geltendes Recht nicht mehr für jeden gilt und nicht ausnahmslos greift? Wenn gefällte Urteile nicht vollzogen werden? Wenn der Staat auf neue Entwicklungen in Zeiten von Digitalisierung und Globalisierung nicht angemessen reagiert? Wenn die Balance zwischen Freiheit und Sicherheit zunehmend zu Lasten der Freiheit verloren geht? Wenn zwar der Sozialstaat weiter ausgebaut wird, die Kernaufgaben des Rechtsstaates aber vernachlässigt werden?

Un giudice che ha il potere di controllare e annullare le leggi del Parlamento. Un giudice che, in caso di contrasti fra un ministro e il governo o fra una Regione e lo Stato, decide chi ha ragione. Organo fondamentale nel sistema di garanzie previsto dalla nostra Costituzione, la Corte costituzionale è un giudice molto particolare, in quanto nasce dall'esigenza di garantire che tutti, compreso il legislatore, rispettino la Costituzione.

Kaum ein Tag vergeht, ohne dass deutsche Gerichte skandalös anmutende Urteile fällen: Brutale Gewalttäter erhalten lächerlich milde Strafen, Wiederholungstäter entgehen längst fälligen Haftbefehlen, weil die Verfahren viel zu lange dauern, Freiheitsstrafen werden wieder und wieder zur Bewährung ausgesetzt. Das Vertrauen in unsere Justiz schwindet. Skandal- und Fehlurteile sind kein Zufall, sondern systembedingt, sagt Richter Thorsten Schleif. Unser Justizsystem versagt bereits lange vor den eigentlichen Verfahren, bei der Ausbildung und Auswahl seiner Richter.

If you can imagine it, somewhere there’s probably a law against it. Laugh out loud over some of Canada’s strangest laws - but not too loudly, or you might get a ticket: until 2002 in BC, you couldn’t stand up while having a drink in a restaurant; in Halifax, cabbies are required to wear socks; you’re not allowed to dogsled on the sidewalks in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; and much more.

Will Sandeson seemed like a model son. A member of the Dalhousie University track and field team, he was about to start classes at Dalhousie’s medical school. He worked at a group home for adults with disabilities. He came from a good family. “There’s times for whatever reason that things don’t go quite as planned,” a Halifax police officer told Sandeson shortly after he was arrested for the first-degree murder of Taylor Samson, who also, on the surface, seemed like a model son.

We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative.

In 1981, after almost two centuries of exclusively male appointments, Sandra Day O'Connor became the first female Supreme Court Justice of the United States, a significant historical moment and a symbolic triumph for supporters of women's rights. Most do not know, however, about the remarkable women shortlisted for the Supreme Court in the decades before O'Connor's success. Since the 1930s, nine women were formally considered for a seat on the Supreme Court, but were ultimately passed over. Shortlisted gives them the recognition they deserve.

In this deeply researched account, one of Washington's top legal reporters reveals the massive funding, sophisticated organization, and fanatical zeal behind the campaign to stop Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the nation's highest court.

16 Supreme Court cases have played an outsized role in answering these vital questions. You may know many by name - like Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Marbury v. Madison. But who were the people involved, and what issues were at stake? How have your life and your country changed because of these decisions? Join award-winning professor David L. Hudson on a riveting journey through these 16 monumental decisions. You will come away with a better understanding of American history, the legal system, and your individual freedoms.

Constitutional fundamentalists read the Constitution selectively and self-servingly. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution elevate certain constitutional rights above all others, benefit the most powerful members of society, and undermine the integrity of the document as a whole. The conservative fetish for the Second Amendment (enforced by groups such as the NRA) provides an obvious example of constitutional fundamentalism; the liberal fetish for the First Amendment (enforced by groups such as the ACLU) is less obvious but no less influential.

Our ability to make choices is fundamental to our sense of ourselves as human beings and essential to the political values of freedom-protecting nations. Whom we love; where we work; how we spend our time; what we buy: such choices define us in the eyes of ourselves and others, and much blood and ink has been spilt to establish and protect our rights to make them freely. Choice can also be a burden. Our cognitive capacity to research and make the best decisions is limited, so every active choice comes at a cost.

Since America's founding, the US Supreme Court had issued a vast number of decisions on a staggeringly wide variety of subjects. And hundreds of judges have occupied the bench. Yet as Cass R. Sunstein, the eminent legal scholar and best-selling co-author of Nudge, points out, almost every one of the Justices fits into a very small number of types regardless of ideology: the hero, the soldier, the minimalist, and the mute.

One promise of democracy is the right of every citizen to vote. And yet, from our founding, strong political forces were determined to limit that right. The Supreme Court, Alexander Hamilton wrote, would protect the weak against this very sort of tyranny. Still, as On Account of Race forcefully demonstrates, through the better part of American history the Court has instead been a protector of white rule. And complex threats against the right to vote persist even today.

Ian Millhiser, Vox's Supreme Court correspondent, tells the story of what the six very conservative Republicans Supreme Court justices are likely to do with their power. The Agenda exposes a radically altered Supreme Court whose powers extend far beyond transforming any individual right - its agenda is to shape the very nature of America's government, redefining who gets to have legal rights, who is beyond the reach of the law, and who chooses the people who make our laws.

In this book, investigative journalist Haley Sweetland Edwards offers a detailed look at one little-known but powerful provision in most modern trade agreements that is designed to protect the financial interests of global corporations against the governments of sovereign states. She makes a devastating case that Investor-State Dispute Settlement - a "shadow court" that allows corporations to sue a nation outside its own court system - has tilted the balance of power on the global stage.

The Indian Penal Code was formulated in 1860, three years after the first Indian revolt for independence. But it was only in 1870 that Section 124A was slipped into Chapter VI, defining the offense of Sedition in a statute for the first time in the history of common law. When India became independent in 1947, the Constituent Assembly expressed strong reservations against sedition as a restriction on free speech as it had been used as a weapon against freedom fighters, many of whom were a part of the Assembly. And yet it has survived....

Since the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, this judicial review has been highly deferential: courts must uphold agency interpretations of unclear laws as long as these interpretations are "reasonable." But the Chevron doctrine faces backlash from constitutional scholars and, now, from Supreme Court justices who insist that courts, not administrative agencies, have the authority to say what the law is. Recognizing that Congress cannot help relying on agencies to carry out laws, Merrill rejects the notion of discarding the administrative state.