Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Preventing Balkanization Or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique Of The New Equal Protection, Darren L. Hutchinson
Preventing Balkanization Or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique Of The New Equal Protection, Darren L. Hutchinson
Darren L Hutchinson
Abstract
Preventing Balkanization or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique of the
New Equal Protection
The Supreme Court requires that equal protection plaintiffs prove defendants acted with discriminatory intent. The intent rule has insulated from judicial invalidation numerous policies that harmfully impact racial and ethnic minorities. Court doctrine also mandates that state actors remain colorblind. The colorblindness doctrine has caused the Court to invalidate many policies that were designed to ameliorate the conditions of racial inequality. Taken together, these two equality doctrines facilitate racial domination. The Court justifies this outcome on the ground that the Constitution does not protect “group rights.” …
Democracy And Renewed Distrust: Equal Protection And The Evolving Judicial Conception Of Politics, Bertrall L. Ross
Democracy And Renewed Distrust: Equal Protection And The Evolving Judicial Conception Of Politics, Bertrall L. Ross
Bertrall L Ross
Judicial interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause have undergone a major transformation over the last fifty years. A Supreme Court once suspicious of the democratic losses of discrete and insular minorities, now closely scrutinizes their democratic victories. A Court once active in structuring the democratic process to be inclusive of racial and other minorities, now views minority representation in the political process as essentially irrelevant. A Court once deferential to exercises of congressional power that enhanced the equal protection rights of minorities, now gives Congress much less leeway.
What explains these shifts? An easy explanation is that the Supreme Court …
The Conflict Between Stare Decisis And Overruling In Constitutional Adjudication, Steven J. Burton
The Conflict Between Stare Decisis And Overruling In Constitutional Adjudication, Steven J. Burton
steven J. burton
There is a near-consensus among Supreme Court Justices and constitutional scholars that there is no significant law, and need not be a law, constraining the Court's power to overrule its constitutional precedents. This Essay/Article argues, to the contrary, that the Court's overruling power should be constitutionally constrained for essentially the same reasons that virtually every other federal government power is constrained. It proposes and defends a constitutional law of overruling.