Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Administering Justice examines the leadership role of chief justices in the American states, including how those duties require chief justices to be part of the broader state political environment. Vining and Wilhelm focus extensively on the power of chief justices as public spokespersons, legislative liaisons, and reform leaders. In contrast to much existing research on chief justices in the states, this study weighs their extrajudicial responsibilities rather than intracourt leadership. By assessing the content of State of the Judiciary remarks delivered over a period of sixty years, Vining and Wilhelm are able to analyze the reform agendas advanced by chief justices and determine what factors influence the likelihood of success. These analyses confirm that chief justices engage with state politics in meaningful ways and that reactions to their proposals are influenced by ideological congruence with other political elites and the scope of their requests. Administering Justice also examines the chief justice position as an institution, provides a collective profile of its occupants, and surveys growing diversity among court leaders.

Judicial power. --- Judicial power --- History.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The debate on access to justice, besides being opportune within the reform of the Judiciary, is strategic from the perspective of promoting human rights. In addition to being a fundamental human right, access to justice is one of the conditions to guarantee the effectiveness of all human rights. A society that does not guarantee access to justice can hardly be said to be a society that has effectively reached a Democratic Rule of Law.

Judicial power --- LAW

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In Confirmation Wars, Benjamin Wittes examines the degradation of the judicial nominations process over the past fifty years. Drawing on years of reporting on judicial nominations, including numerous interviews with nominees and sitting judges, he explains how the process has changed and how these changes threaten the independence of the courts. Getting beyond the partisan blame game that dominates most discussion of nominations, he argues that the process has changed as an institutional response by Congress to modern judicial power and urges basic reforms to better insulate the judiciary from the nastiness of contemporary politics.

Judges --- Judicial power --- Selection and appointment

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Against Judicial Activism cites numerous cases to support this argument. For instance, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and Supreme Court read a ban on discrimination on the ground of transsexualism as being part of the province's human rights code. On the basis of this revision of the law, the tribunal ordered the Vancouver Rape Relief Society to pay $7,500 to a transsexual man in compensation for refusing to admit him into a training course for rape crisis counsellors.

Judicial review --- Civil rights --- Judge-made law --- Political questions and judicial power --- Canada. --- Judicial power

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Schools, welfare agencies, and a wide variety of other state and local institutions of vital importance to citizens are actually controlled by attorneys and judges rather than governors and mayors. In this valuable book, Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod explain how this has come to pass, why it has resulted in service to the public that is worse, not better, and what can be done to restore control of these programs to democratically elected-and accountable-officials.Sandler and Schoenbrod tell how the courts, with the best intentions and often with the approval of elected officials, came to control ordinary policy making through court decrees. These court regimes, they assert, impose rigid and often ancient detailed plans that can founder on reality. Newly elected officials, who may wish to alter the plans in response to the changing wishes of voters, cannot do so unless attorneys, court-appointed functionaries, and lower-echelon officials agree. The result is neither judicial government nor good government, say Sandler and Schoenbrod, and they offer practical reforms that would set governments free from this judicial stranglehold, allow courts to do their legitimate job of protecting rights, and strengthen democracy.

Judge-made law --- Judicial power --- Courts --- Democracy --- United States