Showing titles in Judicial Systems

The Great Decision tells the riveting story of Marshall and of the landmark court case, Marbury v. Madison, through which he empowered the Supreme Court and transformed the idea of the separation of powers into a working blueprint for our modern state.

Riforma giustizia, lavori in corso: Giustizia, trattativa in salita coi Cinquestelle. Il voto sulla riforma prima delle ferie e Draghi pensa alla fiducia, di Tommaso Ciriaco; Giustizia, la riforma slitta: gelo tra Cartabia e M5S. Torna l'ipotesi fiducia, di Tommaso Ciriaco e Liana Milella; Riforma della giustizia, il governo chiede il voto fiducia: "Evitiamo zone di impunità", di Liana Milella; Giustizia, Draghi congela la trattativa. Tensione tra i 5 Stelle, di Tommaso Ciriaco e Liana Milella.

Vor dem Gesetz sind alle gleich. Doch was geschieht, wenn geltendes Recht nicht mehr für jeden gilt und nicht ausnahmslos greift? Wenn gefällte Urteile nicht vollzogen werden? Wenn der Staat auf neue Entwicklungen in Zeiten von Digitalisierung und Globalisierung nicht angemessen reagiert? Wenn die Balance zwischen Freiheit und Sicherheit zunehmend zu Lasten der Freiheit verloren geht? Wenn zwar der Sozialstaat weiter ausgebaut wird, die Kernaufgaben des Rechtsstaates aber vernachlässigt werden?

Nomine, spartizioni, accordi sottobanco fra le correnti. Tutto avvilente, per carità. Ma c'è ben altro, ben altre infezioni, nel corpo malato della corporazione togata. Comportamenti e azioni davanti a cui si resta interdetti e si fatica a trovare parole adeguate. Ci sono giudici che hanno depositato sentenze con mesi e mesi di ritardo e altri che hanno dimenticato in cella gli imputati per 51 giorni. Ci sono giudici che hanno chiamato i carabinieri per non pagare il conto al ristorante e altri che hanno smarrito pratiche e fascicoli, vanificando anni di processi.

Un giudice che ha il potere di controllare e annullare le leggi del Parlamento. Un giudice che, in caso di contrasti fra un ministro e il governo o fra una Regione e lo Stato, decide chi ha ragione. Organo fondamentale nel sistema di garanzie previsto dalla nostra Costituzione, la Corte costituzionale è un giudice molto particolare, in quanto nasce dall'esigenza di garantire che tutti, compreso il legislatore, rispettino la Costituzione.

Kaum ein Tag vergeht, ohne dass deutsche Gerichte skandalös anmutende Urteile fällen: Brutale Gewalttäter erhalten lächerlich milde Strafen, Wiederholungstäter entgehen längst fälligen Haftbefehlen, weil die Verfahren viel zu lange dauern, Freiheitsstrafen werden wieder und wieder zur Bewährung ausgesetzt. Das Vertrauen in unsere Justiz schwindet. Skandal- und Fehlurteile sind kein Zufall, sondern systembedingt, sagt Richter Thorsten Schleif. Unser Justizsystem versagt bereits lange vor den eigentlichen Verfahren, bei der Ausbildung und Auswahl seiner Richter.

If you can imagine it, somewhere there’s probably a law against it. Laugh out loud over some of Canada’s strangest laws - but not too loudly, or you might get a ticket: until 2002 in BC, you couldn’t stand up while having a drink in a restaurant; in Halifax, cabbies are required to wear socks; you’re not allowed to dogsled on the sidewalks in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; and much more.

 Presumed Guilty reveals how the Supreme Court allows the perpetuation of racist policing by presuming that suspects, especially people of color, are guilty. 

In 1981, after almost two centuries of exclusively male appointments, Sandra Day O'Connor became the first female Supreme Court Justice of the United States, a significant historical moment and a symbolic triumph for supporters of women's rights. Most do not know, however, about the remarkable women shortlisted for the Supreme Court in the decades before O'Connor's success. Since the 1930s, nine women were formally considered for a seat on the Supreme Court, but were ultimately passed over. Shortlisted gives them the recognition they deserve. 

In this deeply researched account, one of Washington's top legal reporters reveals the massive funding, sophisticated organization, and fanatical zeal behind the campaign to stop Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the nation's highest court.

16 Supreme Court cases have played an outsized role in answering these vital questions. You may know many by name - like Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Marbury v. Madison. But who were the people involved, and what issues were at stake? How have your life and your country changed because of these decisions? Join award-winning professor David L. Hudson on a riveting journey through these 16 monumental decisions. You will come away with a better understanding of American history, the legal system, and your individual freedoms.

Constitutional fundamentalists read the Constitution selectively and self-servingly. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution elevate certain constitutional rights above all others, benefit the most powerful members of society, and undermine the integrity of the document as a whole. The conservative fetish for the Second Amendment (enforced by groups such as the NRA) provides an obvious example of constitutional fundamentalism; the liberal fetish for the First Amendment (enforced by groups such as the ACLU) is less obvious but no less influential.

Since America's founding, the US Supreme Court had issued a vast number of decisions on a staggeringly wide variety of subjects. And hundreds of judges have occupied the bench. Yet as Cass R. Sunstein, the eminent legal scholar and best-selling co-author of Nudge, points out, almost every one of the Justices fits into a very small number of types regardless of ideology: the hero, the soldier, the minimalist, and the mute.

Anna-Jane Cheney was a vivacious, popular and talented lawyer with an impeccable middle-class upbringing. The man she loved, Henry Keogh, was a divorced Irish migrant with three children. She died just six weeks before their wedding date, and Keogh was convicted of her murder. Journalist Graham Archer became fascinated by the case. It wasn’t a matter of guilt or innocence but that a man could be sentenced to life without having received a fair trial. 

One promise of democracy is the right of every citizen to vote. And yet, from our founding, strong political forces were determined to limit that right. The Supreme Court, Alexander Hamilton wrote, would protect the weak against this very sort of tyranny. Still, as On Account of Race forcefully demonstrates, through the better part of American history the Court has instead been a protector of white rule. And complex threats against the right to vote persist even today.

Winner of the 2021 IRE Book Award Winner of the 2022 Texas Institute of Letters Carr P. Collins Award for Best Book of Nonfiction In the age of #MeToo, learn how brave whistleblowers have dared to lift the federal court’s veil of secrecy to expose powerful judges who appear to defy laws they...

Indian judicial system has garnered worldwide fame through its historical and remarkable judgements and the hard work of its judges and lawyers rarely catches the glaze of common public. Legal Eagle tries to bridge this gap. Indu Bhan’s 'Legal Eagles: Stories of top seven Indian lawyers’...

The Indian Penal Code was formulated in 1860, three years after the first Indian revolt for independence. It was the country's first-ever codification of offences and penalties. But it was only in 1870 that Section 124A was slipped into Chapter VI ('Of Offences against the State'), defining the...

The United States Supreme Court has numbered nine justices for the past 150 years. But that number is not fixed. With the Democrats controlling the House and Senate during the Biden presidency, they could add justices to the Supreme Court. But would court packing destroy the Court as an apolitical judicial institution? This is the crucial question Stephen Feldman addresses in his provocative book, Pack the Court! He uses a historical, analytical, and political argument to justify court-packing in general and Democratic court-packing more specifically.

Brilliant. Colorful. Visionary. Tenacious. Witty. Since his appointment to the Supreme Court in 1986, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has been described as all of these things, and for good reason.