Search results

From one angle, abortion law appears to confirm the regime politics account of the Supreme Court; after all, the Reagan/Bush coalition succeeded in significantly curtailing the constitutional protection of abortion rights. From another angle, however, it is puzzling that the Reagan/Bush Court repeatedly refused to overturn Roe v. Wade. We argue that time and again electoral considerations led Republican elites to back away from a forceful assertion of their agenda for constitutional change. As a result, the justices generally acted within the range of possibilities acceptable to the governing regime but still typically had multiple doctrinal options from which to choose.

Looks at two possibilities outcomes for information and communication technology (ICT) in the world. Argues ICT’s development potential is undervalued but its potential is increasing as technology becomes cheaper and diversifies. States ICTs offer important tools to empower the less‐well‐off communities, reducing inequalities.

The premise that the U.S. Supreme Court never veers too far off from the dominant national political coalition (Dahl, 1957) has become widely accepted among social scientists today. To fulfill that promise, however, the confirmation process for justices must serve as a plebiscite through which the public can ratify or reject future justices based on their views. Unfortunately, modern confirmation hearings have become an exercise in obfuscation, providing little meaningful dialogue on important issues. Because conservative Republican presidents have made the lion's share of appointments in recent times, social conservatives have most often benefited from a process that has severed the link between Supreme Court nominees and the polity they must serve.

On the surface the WSIS in Geneva last December was a harmonious success with the world united in commending the merits of the information society. But reaching agreement was not easy and several contentious issues were unresolved and deferred until the final session scheduled for 2005. This article summarises the outcome of the summit and looks at the challenges that still remain.

This paper presents an overview of what we have learned about the state of academic freedom in the public schools. It includes a rationale for the place of academic freedom in social studies classrooms, a perspective on the court system as recourse for teachers, and a call for action to protect our freedoms by alternative means. Based on a National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) presentation by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer Fritz Mulhauser, the paper provides a thematic summary of case law and precedent as they stand at present, including speech outside of school, classroom materials and content, classroom discussion, and expression through dress. Finally, the paper offers suggestions of how to exercise academic freedom successfully in the classroom.

Fifty years ago the political scientist Robert Dahl concluded that courts are usually in sync with “the policy views dominant among the lawmaking majorities” and thus offer little help to aggrieved minorities (Dahl, 1957, p. 285). In recent years, Dahl's classic formulation has received renewed attention. This chapter uses the example of the Rehnquist Court's First Amendment decisions to analyze “regime politics” theory. On religion cases the Rehnquist Court was generally in sync with the socially conservative strain in the Republican Party, but in other First Amendment areas the pattern is far more complex, raising questions about the relationship between conservative judges and the political movements that brought them to office.

Copyright law has been oft-criticized for its unintended consequences. This paper retells three “tales of the unintended” concerning the 1976 Copyright Act, the present U.S. copyright statute. The first tale focuses on fair use, the second on statutory damages, and the third on formalities. From these three tales, the paper draws five different morals that provide insights into the ongoing process of copyright reform. These insights will enable policymakers and commentators to rethink the ongoing and future development of copyright law.

Sets out US and Californian law on religious discrimination, setting out the protection this gives employees from being discriminated against in either employment, training or compensation for employment because of the religious beliefs. Also points out that the law requires employees to make reasonable accommodation to enable employees participate in religious observances. Lists the steps that employees must take to prove that there has been religious discrimination. Looks at California and US case law and finds that they give similar religious rights in the workplace. Sets out what these rights are as they relate to employment, membership of a trade union, and access to training. Assesses the impact of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993, indicating the extra rights this gives church and other religious organizations. Summarizes the President’s Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace, issued by the White House in 1997. Points out that some groups object to these rights on the grounds that they might infringe other groups’ rights to protection from harassment.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the issues related to “scheme liability” that underlie the current case before the United States Supreme Court, Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific‐Atlanta and Motorola.

Explains the facts of the Stoneridge case; explains the legal framework, including ongoing debates over the scope of liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‐5, the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, development of the “scheme liability” concept by various plaintiffs' lawyers, and three circuit court decisions related to scheme liability; and the philosophy that is likely to guide the Supreme Court in Stoneridge.

The Stoneridge case provides the Supreme Court with the unique opportunity to clarify the limits of liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b‐5. It is the first time since Central Bank that the Supreme Court will grapple with the contours of liability for so‐called secondary actors.

A clear explanation of the issues in a highly visible Supreme Court case by an experienced commercial litigator.