Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Social and Behavioral Sciences
The Federalism-Rights Nexus: Explaining Why Senate Democrats Tolerate Rehnquist Court Decision Making But Not The Rehnquist Court, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
For the first time in a century, the Supreme Court is divided solely by political party.
Diminished Luster In Escambia County?, Neal Devins
Diminished Luster In Escambia County?, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act: Some Wrongs Still Not Righted, Neal Devins
The 1965 Voting Rights Act: Some Wrongs Still Not Righted, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In United States Supreme Court Opinions, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In United States Supreme Court Opinions, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
OCL surveys United States Supreme Court cases from 1791 to 1900 for deployment of the phrase stare decisis in opinions and published arguments before the Court. The people, as Madison conceded, make their own precedents; they do this by approving (or not disapproving) official action (in the recent past); in turn, these officials look back to official action taken at time/s more or less remote from the present for their precedents.
Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In The United States Supreme Court, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In The United States Supreme Court, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
OCL surveys United States Supreme Court cases from 1791 to 1900 for deployment of the phrase stare decisis in opinions and published arguments before the Court. The people, as Madison conceded, make their own precedents; they do this by approving (or not disapproving) official action (in the recent past); in turn, these officials look back to official action taken at time/s more or less remote from the present for their precedents.
Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In United States Supreme Court Opinions, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In United States Supreme Court Opinions, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
OCL surveys United States Supreme Court cases from 1791 to 1900 for deployment of the phrase stare decisis in opinions and published arguments before the Court. The people, as Madison conceded, make their own precedents by approving (prior) official action taken by current officials as a foundation for resolving issues-of-the-day.
Table Annexed To Workshop Materials: Unanimous Decisions, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Table Annexed To Workshop Materials: Unanimous Decisions, Peter J. Aschenbrenner
Peter J. Aschenbrenner
How can so many unanimous decisions result from the decision-making of judges appointed by Presidents of different parties? Decisions (2000-2010) are surveyed.
All Things In Proportion? American Rights Doctrine And The Problem Of Balancing, Alec Stone Sweet
All Things In Proportion? American Rights Doctrine And The Problem Of Balancing, Alec Stone Sweet
Alec Stone Sweet
No abstract provided.