The Supreme Court in a Constitutional Democracy | Law and Politics in the Roberts Court
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2022
- What is the relationship between law and politics in the Supreme Court? And has it changed in our current moment? Does the Roberts Court break from prior judicial understandings or popular expectations about the role of law and of politics in judicial review? Do changes in American politics over time help us to better understand the current moment? And should the relationship between law and politics in the Roberts Court affect how we think about the power of the judiciary more broadly? Join us in exploring such questions with leading voices from a range of perspectives including legal academia, political science, civil rights advocacy, and journalism.
Read more on Harvard Law Today: hls.harvard.edu/today/politic...
Moderator:
Daphna Renan, Peter B. Munroe and Mary J. Munroe Professor of Law
Panelists:
William Baude, Professor of Law & Faculty Director of the Constitutional Law Institute, University of Chicago Law School
Amanda Hollis-Brusky, Professor of Politics & Chair of the Politics Department, Pomona College
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent, The New York Times
Leah Litman, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Read more: hls.harvard.edu/today/politic...
Excellent! Thanks for sharing! 👍🏾
The role of the Supreme Court is to back and to go by the constitution that's the role of any politician as well they all take an oath to office to honor uphold and protect our constitution that is there of office too many of our politicians nowadays are turning their back on our constitution trying to pass more and more laws gain more and more control and just shred our constitution in this country's way of life
what the fuck are you saying, girl?
Lincoln destroyed respect for the constitution. So America has a long history of disregarding the words in document considered supreme law of the land.
@@randomspielshe's saying: America.
a language THESE folks on this panel (with the POSSIBLE exception of the gentleman with hair, maybe (?) wasn't too sure about him. 🤷🏻♀️), as well as yourself I'm feeling, obviously DON'T speak.
she saying, rather PLAINLY, despite your ability to comprehend:
the Constitution is laid out in black & white & IF changed, whatsoever, is ONLY done so through a very specific, also plainly laid out procedure....and IS DONE IN THIS SUCH WAY - INTENTIONALLY.
the "changes" discussed here are treasonous on a patriotic, Representative Republic level & AN AFFRONT TO EVERYTHING THAT IS 'AMERICA' on a sentimental level.
I mean....there are PLENTY of other countries, outside of US, that have governments such as those discussed here --- and UNLIKE THOSE COUNTRIES, you're completely free to leave America whenever and however you wish - if you'd like to live like that.
However, in closing: there's a reason all those countries' citizens would trade their places there with you, in order to come & be an American in your place
Nice post with regards By Adv T E Barat Bushan Senior Advocate Member of MHAA Chennai
The Supreme Court has evolved in such a way that it has come to believe that its primary purpose is to carry out the undelegated power of judicial review, which was only assumed by the Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison based upon the presumption that the People cannot reasonably be expected to explain their intended meaning and understanding of Constitutional provisions whenever such questions arise. The Court was most certainly correct in its presumption 200 years ago, however, circumstances have since changed and government now possess the power and ability to easily raise that question before the People of the United States with little effort and expense, while the People now possess the power and ability to answer such questions with little effort and expense as a result of the substancial improvements that have been made in our Nation's communication technology. There was a time when it was imperative that the People's will be expressed and carried out representationally just as it was imperative to establish a government run courier service to transport the People's mail back and forth across the Nation. In modern times however the People have the ability to communicate and share their ideas and opinions with other individuals located on the other side of the globe instantaneously and at the puah of a button, thereby indicating that the People no longer require someone else to speak on their behalf whenever the circumstances warrant discretion based upon their personal opinion. That can now easily be expressed directly. Therefor, the implication that justices of the Supreme Court must assume the power to represent the People in their opinions no longer applies and the Supreme Court must return what powers they have taken from the People that no longer require their administration or representation. Our current political climate and the evident political divide of this Nation are clear indications that the People of this Nation are growing deaperate to take greater control over their government and over their own lives, and is also a clear indication that the People's "representatives" have grown out of touch with its People and has lost the ability to interpret their intentions.
When a person files a 42 usc 1983 in the part of claims of violations can 18 usc 241, 242 be used
The court is obviously a political institution conferred a judicial mandate. The problem lies in drawing the line between the political and the judicial. Most new democracies since 1945 onwards have recognised this difficulty and have accepted that although the court may come to a decision through the judicial process, its decisions will inevitable have political consequences including policy choices by the people. This acceptance firstly, rejects the so called political doctrine and altimately shapes how a court interprets laws since its decisions always have political consequences.
Very true, indeed...
Well the court's judicial mandate is spelled out in the constitution, it is not that difficult to figure out what it can and cannot do. It is clearly stated in Article 3 section 2. Complication comes from academics.
added
I’m just halfway through and have not heard the audience Q&A, but I think it’s interesting that the panel did not discuss the historic yet fraught appointment of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. What does it mean that the Democratic Party / the Biden administration felt the need to say publicly during a presidential campaign that his first SCOTUS nominee would be a Black woman? And how is that linked to the fact that this panel had one token Black woman who was also the panel’s only practitioner (and who did an amazing job holding down the fort)? I hope to see more racial diversity in future panels in this series, which will hopefully prompt more diverse points of view. I’m not sure more diversity would legitimize the panel’s laser focus on the Court (to Professor Baude’s point), just as I’m not sure KBJ can legitimize this Court, but it would be meaningful nonetheless.
To go get stuff office the penalties are immediately removal of office a heavy fine or levy possible jail time in imprisonment
Nowhere in the constitution did it mention the right for abortion or to kill your child in fact it states protection of life and pursuit of happiness the constitution binds the government what they cannot do
There's no room in the Supreme Court for politics is to enforce the constitution the president job is to protect and enforce the constitution the Congress job is to protect the constitution and and to enforce the constitution to back it and to come up with laws to protected and the people
We are not a democracy we are a Republic read the constitution you guys are talking about it read it the first ten amendments especially that is what the constitution is all about
BURN!!
also, based. 😀