Search results

As more social studies classrooms gain access to the Internet each year, teachers are frequently exploring ways to maximize the use of this technology in their respective learning environments. This paper discusses the need to generate – and the subsequent benefits of facilitating – discussion when using the Internet in social studies settings, especially as it relates to learning about the Supreme Court. The author provides examples of how the Supreme Court webpage can be used in the high school Civics classroom; using the authentic intellectual work framework to provide the necessary structure for the lesson and background information on specific Supreme Court cases to help teachers implement the lesson with their students.

The purpose of this article is to provide librarians (and their patrons) with a quick method for finding United States Supreme Court cases in varied sources, including in databases and on internet web sites.

In order to provide librarians (and their patrons) with a quick method for finding Supreme Court cases, the article will explain case citations and case names. In addition, the article will provide varied sources for finding a case on a particular topic, for finding a major Supreme Court case – by case name or by topic – and for finding current Supreme Court cases.

In 1989, a guide that offered a quick method of finding Supreme Court cases appeared in Reference Services Review. However, since the article's inception, numerous sources, including databases and internet web sites, have come into existence. As such, an update of varied sources for quickly finding Supreme Court cases is needed.

The article is a useful resource for librarians (and their patrons) to quickly find Supreme Court cases.

The strategies and ideas presented in the article will provide librarians (and their patrons) with the means to quickly find Supreme Court cases.

Legalists and social scientists have not been able to explain the expansion of gay rights in a conservative age because they refuse to respect the special qualities of judicial decision making. These qualities require the Supreme Court to look simultaneously at the past, present, and future, and, most importantly, to determine questions of individual rights through a consideration of how citizens are to live under a continuing rights regime. Unless scholars understand how and why Supreme Court decision making differs from that of more directly politically accountable institutions we can expect no greater success in explaining or predicting individual rights in the future.

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.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

This chapter examines the influence of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy on some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the past three decades. Mobilizing the epistemic community framework, it demonstrates how network members, acting as amici curiae, litigators, academics, and judges worked to transmit intellectual capital to Supreme Court decision makers in 12 federalism and separation of powers cases decided between 1983 and 2001. It finds that Federalist Society members were most successful in diffusing ideas into Supreme Court opinions in cases where doctrinal distance was greatest; that is, cases where the Supreme Court moved the farthest from its established constitutional framework.

The purpose of this paper is to show how fighting financial crime suffered a setback in Nigeria as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in an appeal case – Ude Jones Udeogu v FRN and Ors no SC. 622C/2019.

This paper is a critical analysis of the implication of Supreme Courts’ ruling in Ude Udeogu Jones, its implication to law enforcement’s effort in fighting financial crime and the way to get around the ruling. The paper adopts qualitative methods. It is conducted through the analysis of the ruling and the relevant laws.

Due to the ruling in UdeUdeogu Jones, Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 is no longer good law. Federal High Court judges elevated to the Court of Appeal no longer have special dispensation to conclude criminal cases they part heard. Furthermore, the ruling is a serious setback on the law enforcement’s efforts in fighting corruption. However, the drastic effect of the ruling can be mitigated by amending Section 396(7).

Because the ruling is very recent, analysis is based on the relevant enactments and case laws including recent decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

There is no comprehensive work on this ruling. Therefore, this paper adds value to knowledge as it makes clear the background of the appeal case, as well as the impact of the ruling of the Supreme Court on fighting financial crime in Nigeria and the way to get around the ruling.

In a series of mid-20th century cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has modified and diversified the status of the enemy in U.S. law. We see a shift away from the statist egalitarian model toward a transnationalized model of enemies. U.S. Supreme Court decisions in three clusters of cases (German enemy aliens, the internment of the West Coast Japanese Americans, and Communist) from the 1940s and 1950s prefigure the radicalized post-9/11 “enemy combatant” status. The choice for such enemy conceptions is both a result of and a contribution to the changes in contemporary practices of violence.