Showing titles in Judicial Systems

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.

From 2011, when Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, until the present, Congress enacted hardly any major legislation outside of the tax law President Trump signed in 2017. In the same period, the Supreme Court dismantled much of America's campaign finance law, severely...

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...

元最高裁判事の千葉勝美が、同性婚を認めない現行法の憲法適合性を論じる。同性婚を認めない制度を合憲とするのが現在の判例である。しかし、昨今国内で係属している裁判の一部で、憲法への抵触を宣言するものが出てきている。

Im Sommer 1948 stehen große Entscheidungen an: Die westlichen Alliierten beauftragen 65 Männer und Frauen damit, eine Verfassung auszuarbeiten. Monate leidenschaftlicher Diskussionen beginnen, in denen gestritten, getrickst und geträumt wird. Wie soll es werden, das neue Land? Kurz nachdem in den drei Westzonen im Frühsommer 1948 eine neue Währung eingeführt wird, riegelt die Sowjetunion West-Berlin ab: Die Stadt ist blockiert. Die USA beschließen, zwei Millionen Menschen aus der Luft zu versorgen und schicken "Rosinenbomber" los, von denen gleich einer der ersten abstürzt.

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.

On January 12, 2007, what began as a felony tax trial for Ed and Elaine Brown in Plainfield, New Hampshire, spiraled into the longest armed standoff in U.S. Marshals history. Refusing to appear in court and surrender to federal authorities, the Browns transformed their home into a fortress, drawing support from militia groups and anti-government activists nationwide.

In "Judicial Reform: Understanding Supreme Court Ethics and Term Limits for a Fairer System," author Sage Ellison addresses the pressing need for integrity within the Supreme Court. As trust in judicial institutions wanes, this book explores the significance of ethical practices and the potential implementation of term limits for justices to promote a fairer judicial system. Ellison provides insights into the challenges currently facing the judiciary, including public uncertainty about ethical standards and the need for a court that reflects modern democratic values.