The Supreme Court Review 2012

For fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the court's most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First- and Fourth-Amendment cases.

Published every September in celebration of Constitution Day, the Cato Supreme Court Review brings together leading legal scholars to analyze the most important cases of the Court's most recent term. It is the first scholarly review to appear after the term's end and the only on to critique the court from a Madisonian perspective.

Now in its 12th year, this acclaimed annual publication brings together leading national scholars to analyze the Supreme Court's most important decisions from the term just ended and to preview the year ahead. The Cato Supreme Court Review is unlike any other publication that follows the work of the Court: - It is timely. An in-depth review, it appears less than three months after the Court's term ends and before the new term begins. - Although widely cited by legal experts, its articles are aimed at, and accessible to, nonattorneys interested in the work of the Court. - Crucial to its exceptional coverage, the Review takes a Madisonian perspec-tive--grounded in the nation's first principles of liberty and limited government. Cases critiqued in the 2012-2013 edition include those involving international human rights, racial preferences in higher education, and the Voting Rights Act, as well as cutting edge issues of criminal procedure, property rights, and class actions. There's also an important regulatory case concerning a bizarre New Deal-era raisin-marketing law. A point-counterpoint on the patenting of human genes will be presented, and finally, the Review will analyze this term's gay rights cases, one challenging the Defense of Marriage Act and the other taking up California's Proposition 8.

In Governing from the Bench, Emmett Macfarlane draws on interviews with current and former justices, law clerks, and other staff members of the court to shed light on the institution’s internal environment and decision-making processes. He explores the complex role of the Supreme Court as an institution; exposes the rules, conventions, and norms that shape and constrain its justices’ behavior; and situates the court in its broader governmental and societal context, as it relates to the elected branches of government, the media, and the public.

For fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

Judicial Review, Third Edition covers the grounds for review, defences to an application, the remedies and procedures involved and covers the Rules of the Superior Courts 2011, SI 691/2011. It includes cases such as article 40 inquiries (habeas corpus applications) and references to the European Court of Justice under article 234 TEC. It is the definitive text on judicial review available in Ireland and also of important reference in the United Kingdom. The law in relation to the reasonableness and proportionality of an administrative decision has been re-examined in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Meadows v Minister for Justice. Also re-examined is the law in relation to a decision-maker's obligation to give reasons for his decision in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mallak. As well as these, the book features a detailed account of the meaning and effect of a 'proportionality analysis' of a public act, indeed proportionality features prominently throughout the book in conjunction with the discussions on Meadows. There is also a detailed discussion of a court's approach to 'deference' in respect of a public act. In this new edition, the procedure chapters have been rewritten to take account of changes brought about by SI 691/2011 and SI 345/2015. Along with this a new chapter has been added on the philosophy of judicial review.

In this book, legal scholars outline how and why the Supreme Court should revitalize the nondelegation doctrine—which has not been invoked since 1935. If the Court does so, it will protect the constitutional separation of powers and require Congress to make the difficult political decisions that a legislature should make in a democratic society.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. An in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, The Supreme Court Review keeps at the forefront of the reforms and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth Amendment cases.