Constitutional Courts Media And Public Opinion

This book explores how constitutional courts have transformed communication and overcome their reluctance to engage in direct dialogue with citizens. How has the information revolution affected the relationship of constitutional courts with the public and the media? The book looks in detail at the communication strategies of the US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Canada, and in Europe the German Federal Constitutional Tribunal, the French Conseil Constitutionnel and the Italian Constitutional Court, arguing that when it comes to the relationship between courts and the media, different jurisdictions share many similarities. It focuses on the consequences of the communication revolution of courts both in terms of their relationship with public opinion and of the legitimacy of judicial review of legislation. Some constitutional courts have attracted criticism by engaging in proactive communication and, therefore, arguably yielding to the temptation of public support. The book argues that objections to the developing institutional communications employed by courts come from a preconceived notion of public opinion. It considers the burden the communication revolution has placed on constitutional courts to achieve a balance between transparency and seclusion, proximity and distance from public opinion. It puts forward important arguments for how this balance can be achieved. The book will interest scholars in constitutional law and public comparative law, sociologists, historians, political scientists, and scholars of media law and communication studies.

This book explores how constitutional courts have transformed communication and overcome their reluctance to engage in direct dialogue with citizens. How has the information revolution affected the relationship of constitutional courts with the public and the media? The book looks in detail at the communication strategies of the US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Canada, and in Europe the German Federal Constitutional Tribunal, the French Conseil Constitutionnel and the Italian Constitutional Court, arguing that when it comes to the relationship between courts and the media, different jurisdictions share many similarities. It focuses on the consequences of the communication revolution of courts both in terms of their relationship with public opinion and of the legitimacy of judicial review of legislation. Some constitutional courts have attracted criticism by engaging in proactive communication and, therefore, arguably yielding to the temptation of public support. The book argues that objections to the developing institutional communications employed by courts come from a preconceived notion of public opinion. It considers the burden the communication revolution has placed on constitutional courts to achieve a balance between transparency and seclusion, proximity and distance from public opinion. It puts forward important arguments for how this balance can be achieved. The book will interest scholars in constitutional law and public comparative law, sociologists, historians, political scientists, and scholars of media law and communication studies.

This book examines how the judicialization of politics, and the politicization of courts, affect representative democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers. This volume critically assesses the phenomena of judicialization of politics and politicization of the judiciary. It explores the rising impact of courts on key constitutional principles, such as democracy and separation of powers, which is paralleled by increasing criticism of this influence from both liberal and illiberal perspectives. The book also addresses the challenges to rule of law as a principle, preconditioned on independent and powerful courts, which are triggered by both democratic backsliding and the mushrooming of populist constitutionalism and illiberal constitutional regimes. Presenting a wide range of case studies, the book will be a valuable resource for students and academics in constitutional law and political science seeking to understand the increasingly complex relationships between the judiciary, executive and legislature.

This work provides an analysis of American public opinion on the key constitutional controversies of the 20th century, including desegregation, school prayer, abortion, the death penalty affirmative action, gay rights, assisted suicide, and national security, to name just a few.

The Supreme Court is one of the most extraordinary institutions in our system of government. Charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, the nine unelected justices of the Court have the awesome power to strike down laws enacted by our elected representatives. Why does the public accept the Court’s decisions as legitimate and follow them, even when those decisions are highly unpopular? What must the Court do to maintain the public’s faith? How can the Court help make our democracy work? These are the questions that Justice Stephen Breyer tackles in this groundbreaking book. Today we assume that when the Court rules, the public will obey. But Breyer declares that we cannot take the public’s confidence in the Court for granted. He reminds us that at various moments in our history, the Court’s decisions were disobeyed or ignored. And through investigations of past cases, concerning the Cherokee Indians, slavery, and Brown v. Board of Education, he brilliantly captures the steps—and the missteps—the Court took on the road to establishing its legitimacy as the guardian of the Constitution. Justice Breyer discusses what the Court must do going forward to maintain that public confidence and argues for interpreting the Constitution in a way that works in practice. He forcefully rejects competing approaches that look exclusively to the Constitution’s text or to the eighteenth-century views of the framers. Instead, he advocates a pragmatic approach that applies unchanging constitutional values to ever-changing circumstances—an approach that will best demonstrate to the public that the Constitution continues to serve us well. The Court, he believes, must also respect the roles that other actors—such as the president, Congress, administrative agencies, and the states—play in our democracy, and he emphasizes the Court’s obligation to build cooperative relationships with them. Finally, Justice Breyer examines the Court’s recent decisions concerning the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, contrasting these decisions with rulings concerning the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. He uses these cases to show how the Court can promote workable government by respecting the roles of other constitutional actors without compromising constitutional principles. Making Our Democracy Work is a tour de force of history and philosophy, offering an original approach to interpreting the Constitution that judges, lawyers, and scholars will look to for many years to come. And it further establishes Justice Breyer as one of the Court’s greatest intellectuals and a leading legal voice of our time.

Explores the relationship between the legitimacy, the efficacy, and the decision-making of national and transnational constitutional courts.

Chiefly papers originally presented at Guiding the Rule of Law into the 21st Century, a conference held Apr. 16-17, 1999 at the University of Ottawa.

Offers an analysis of the politics of court reform through a focused review of Indonesia's complex court system.